AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 130 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know I'll get a lot of flack for this, but after a few months of paying $11 extra, I just cancelled the HD package. I just don't see how you can justify paying a premium for 1 extra ESPN game every few days (mostly from "other cities", no matter what city you're from), DHDT, HDNet and HDNet Movies.


I like DHDT and HDNet, but it just seems to me this should be something that is included, like the OTA stations just include some shows in HD.


I'm probably asking the wrong group of people:), but does anyone agree with me?
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,682 Posts
The last poll that was taken showed 83% of those who initially signed up are keeping the HD package.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by TWilly
but does anyone agree with me?
Nope. Worth every dime and more. Sunday night NFL alone is worth it. With NHL in HD coming soon to HDNet, wow. And there is always a great movie on HDNet Movies and the Discovery shows are awesome.


But that's me.


[edit to change to NHL]
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,682 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by NoUDont
I must have missed it, but where is the info on that?
Perhaps he means The NFL Network on DirecTV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken H
Perhaps he means The NFL Network on DirecTV?
Or perhaps he meant NHL on HDNet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
... and for someone who has being paying $8/month for *JUST* DiscoveryHD on E*, the $10.99 package seems awesome!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
It's definitely worth it to me at this point - to each his own. I fully expect other channels to be added as they become feasible (technologically and financially) for D* to add them. So while the package may seem a bit sparse at this point, I'm certain it will get better. Either way, it's 100% worth it right now for me - throw in tne NFL games (HD and Widescreen) on Sunday and it's a bonus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
To each his own I guess!

I personnally bought an HDTV to watch HD, Thanks to D* I now do just that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I plan to keep the package through atleast the NFL season. What will keep me in the package will be HD Tivo. As soon as I can cherry pick shows I will likely get more out of the package...A few extra channels wouldn't hurt either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
I have a feeling a lot of people will be saying the same thing tommorow who are Dish Network subs.


I have looked at the schedules and don't see anything that interests me. Yes the HD pictures sure will be nice, but I want to watch something I know, not some pot luck mix of shows most have never heard of before.


I can just see a wave of people saying tommorow "I waited this long for this?"


To those who are going to say that I say, enjoy the eye candy for now, real programming will be coming down the line soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
hmm 12 bucks for the hd or several times that for sd, i have no interest in watching the sd is not worth it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Quote:
I have looked at the schedules and don't see anything that interests me. Yes the HD pictures sure will be nice, but I want to watch something I know, not some pot luck mix of shows most have never heard of before.


I am salivating just for the Oregon State v. Boise State football game on this Saturday. Have you seen Steven Jackson from OSU? The guy is a beast!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,735 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by TWilly
like the OTA stations just include some shows in HD.
OTA channels broadcast some shows in HD with commercials. That is a pretty big difference, IMO (compared to HDNet, HDNet Movies, and DiscoveryHD).


Plus at this stage there are quite a few people who are willing to pay for these things (me being one of them). To each their own. That monthly charge is a pittance compared to what it has cost me to be able to timeshift this stuff and even that has been very worth it to me.


I haven't watched enough ESPN-HD to see how many commercials there are, but the truth is that they have provided a product that many are willing to pay extra for at this point. Years from now, there won't be any extra charge for HD as it will be required for them to compete.


--Darin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by darinp
OTA channels broadcast some shows in HD with commercials. That is a pretty big difference, IMO (compared to HDNet, HDNet Movies, and DiscoveryHD).
I honestly wouldnt mind even 4x3 commercials on Discovery HD Theater, if it means them not repeating the same "Short Subject"s over and over. At least maybe commercials for upcomming programming on their other Discovery channels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
Whether or not the price for the group of hi-def channels is worth it to any individual consumer is a personal judgment and choice.


However, there is a more insidious aspect to this strategy of charging for hi-def versions of SD channels. Within some time period (who really knows how long) all signals will be in hi-def, by law. Why should consumers be paying for these channels in hi-def, when they are already paying for the SD version? The cable companies are mulling the same type of strategy. Why should a consumer pay extra for a CBS hi-def signal which simply duplicates the programming on the CBS SD signal when in a few years that will be the only signal available?


What will the providers do when all channels are hi-def? Will these new fees be simply rolled into the consumers' monthly bill? A good strategy to invoke a price increase without having to announce a price increase.


I am opposed to any provider charging extra for programming in hi-def that it already provides in SD. Consumers should be paying for programming, not form of signal, especially signal forms which are mandated by law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Dear Prof


The federal mandate, as I understand it, has no requirement that stations broadcast in a high Definition format. The specification is that the stations broadcast a digital signal, not an HD signal, Hence Fox, before their recent conversion, was planning on meeting the letter of the law, without going HD. So, it is incorredt to assume all stations will have to have an HD signal anyone. What will insure a ubiquitous HD rather than Digital conversion is market pressure and at that point, I would assume these type of charges will disappear.


Some of the channels, HDNet and HDNet Movies, included in the D* package have no SD counterpart. Also, ESPN, has made an initial monetary committment to HD equipment, and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to chage extra, since their HD target audience is small, and likely non self supporting through commercials.


Are we as early adaptors paying a small extra price to encourage HD development, probably. But I am getting a stunning picture in return, and remain the envy of my sports and movie loving friends.


Will the picture[no pun intended] in the future change when HD is commonplace, of course. However for now I am more than willing to make a small financial outay, to maximize my viewing experience
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
All good points Michael. And, I agree with most of what you say.


I was specific about only including those channels where there is a current SD signal (paying for premium channels is a long established strategy). I did not include those channels which offer unigue programming alternatives (HDNet, etc.).


I understand your comment re: channels being able to broadcast in digital SD under current regs, but I really don't think the market will allow it. It barely tolerates it already. So I think it is a moot point. As consumers continue to buy 16:9 hi-def capable televisions and the major networks send most programming hi-def, what station will be able to compete with primarily SD signals? There may be a market niche, just like AM radio has found talk shows, but I think the handwriting is on the wall. To be a competitive broadcaster, you had better do hi-def. Your example of Fox converting so early in the game illustrates, albeit anecdotally, this point.


IMHO, it is the satellite and cable companies who are taking advantage here. Do you know that ESPN is charging more for it's hi-def signal? I do not begrudge earning back investments from early adopters; price skimming is a viable and sometimes profitable strategy for all. However, I'm getting the impression that those who are broadcasting in hi-def are not getting the extra money being charged to consumers. In fact, I would think that broadcasters in general would be opposed to such a move. They want to encourage viewership, not discourage it. Consumers already pay for HBO, why should they pay for it again? It's the same programming.


An alternative is to tell the provider (satellite, cable, etc.) that you will "give up" the SD channel and only take the hi-def version. Do you think you will get a monthly credit? I doubt it.


These new pricing strategies discourage the diffusion of hi-def into the marketplace and, IMHO, do not have a strong justification.


Yes, the market will sort it out eventually, and I am convinced at this point that the only hi-def channels that will enjoy premium pricing are those that offer programming alternatives.


But, unfortunately for us, in the meantime, some folks are going to say "forget it" when they find out that the new hi-def capable tv they want to buy requires that they pay extra each month for what they can already watch.
 
1 - 20 of 130 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top