AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·



EspnHD is going to bring "joe consumer" into our realm of hdtv viewing(minus the high-end pj's)!! That's why DirecTV and Dishnetwork should be more than happy to pay to get the programming now.


Sports are what hdtv is meant to display! While it is important for movies to show detail and have great sound to reinforce feeling and thoughts, nothing is as important as being able to see the little pushes that you couldn't before in an NBA game or to see whether a player or ball was out of play! Okay, maybe that's a lot of opinion.... But people love to complain about an official making the wrong call. With ESPN-HD they'll be able to see clearly whether the call was right or wrong (most calls anyway). For example, instead of a ball being in two places at once (SDTV), in slow motion, there will be a clear cut pronounced image (HDTV) showing where it landed (in-bounds out-of-bounds).


But the best argument by far is that the majority of big-screen tv owners are men that love to watch sports!! They like there stuff big and they want it to be the best so everybody comes to their house (my house) for the big game! :D With HD sports non-stop, these superbowl buyers will parade through the stores finding HDTV receivers from D* and E* and HDTVs to buy just like they come every year on the week before the sacred day (Super Bowl, of course).


I don't think that anything will affect the lean toward HDTV hardware or programming more than ESPN-HD! With the "High Life" drinkers, like me, going to buy HDTVs the HDTV capability of households will sky rocket. In turn more and more programming will become available.... Okay, I'll say it. With ESPN-HD, the governments mandate of complete digital TV will become a reality.


Okay, you got me... I'm a Miller Lite guy. ;) Just wanted to be cool.. :cool:


Jeff


That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. -- Dennis Miller
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffdolan



Sports are what hdtv is meant to display!


You obviously have never seen Bikini Destinations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
No, no, I have not. Another good justification to keep in the back of your mind. The wife/girlfriend won't back you up on that one. :) In fact, I'll bet the "maybe" becomes a "NO!"... :mad: :D We'll keep bikini destinations on the D.L. for now. ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffdolan



EspnHD is going to bring "joe consumer" into our realm of hdtv viewing(minus the high-end pj's)!! That's why DirecTV and Dishnetwork should be more than happy to pay to get the programming now.


Okay, you got me... I'm a Miller Lite guy. ;) Just wanted to be cool.. :cool:


Jeff


That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. -- Dennis Miller

I strongly disagree. First of all, HD is still a very low priority for Dish or DirecTV. With the limited amount of HD material on ESPN, I have NO intentions of paying a cent for it now. If Dish and DirecTV give in now to the ESPN and pay through the nose for almost no HD for this first year, that will have significant consequences down the line. I applaud the satellite providers refusing to cave in to ESPN. Perhaps next year if there is a significant amount of HD material from ESPN, it would be a different story.


I believe ESPN was way to premature in bringing their HD channel to life. They should have waited until they had significantly more HD material before starting their HD channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry G



I believe ESPN was way to premature in bringing their HD channel to life. They should have waited until they had significantly more HD material before starting their HD channel.
Sorry for being so blunt but I have the privilege of watching HD-Net for at least 8-10hours a day, and significant material I RARELY see!


That being said I would much rather watch repeats of sportscenter than

The Little 500. (My apologies to those who wanted to see a bike race for 500 laps.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
yea i agree the bike race is a bit weak!

but bikini destinations and behind the shutter were very nice :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry G
I strongly disagree. First of all, HD is still a very low priority for Dish or DirecTV. With the limited amount of HD material on ESPN, I have NO intentions of paying a cent for it now. If Dish and DirecTV give in now to the ESPN and pay through the nose for almost no HD for this first year, that will have significant consequences down the line. I applaud the satellite providers refusing to cave in to ESPN. Perhaps next year if there is a significant amount of HD material from ESPN, it would be a different story.


I believe ESPN was way to premature in bringing their HD channel to life. They should have waited until they had significantly more HD material before starting their HD channel.
Jerry:

I agree with everything you say, except that there is another school of thought on an early announcement/deployment. The early announcement might: (a) help to spur a spike in general HD demand which they will need to make the economics work; (b) create enough demand to compliment Disney’s difficult negotiations with providers who, otherwise, would resist Disney’s pricing strategy; (c) help ESPN to establish first mover status for “sports in HD†(just as they did with “sports on Cableâ€); (d) pre-empt other sports outlets programming efforts (such as HD-Net); and (e) provide Disney the opportunity to work out the bugs and go through their learning curve while only an initial handful of subscribers witness the gaffs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
My point isn't without weaknesses, but without big names like ESPN being offered in HD very few people will be buying new HDTV equiptment. That said--Programming, software, and hardware will be more expensive for us. I always encourage the birth of new HD channels to the "civilian" population, and the best way to reach the most customers right now is via satelite and OTA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MickeyGee
Jerry:

I agree with everything you say, except that there is another school of thought on an early announcement/deployment. The early announcement might: (a) help to spur a spike in general HD demand which they will need to make the economics work; (b) create enough demand to compliment Disney’s difficult negotiations with providers who, otherwise, would resist Disney’s pricing strategy; (c) help ESPN to establish first mover status for “sports in HD†(just as they did with “sports on Cableâ€); (d) pre-empt other sports outlets programming efforts (such as HD-Net); and (e) provide Disney the opportunity to work out the bugs and go through their learning curve while only an initial handful of subscribers witness the gaffs.
I agree with all your points. But there shouldn't be any charge during this first year period. The problem is how to implement a no charge for the first year and then a charge after that without causing customer complaints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,531 Posts
JerryG,


The fact that it is a pay channel this year (as opposed to being free) is irrelevent, imo. Even if it was free to cable and DBS providers, you'd still have to pay cable and satellite to receive it, particularly when any carriage agreement would include a rate card with specified pricing and increases for the next three to six years.


The providers are not going to offer a channel for free this year when they know how much they will have to pay next year; instead, you'd almost certainly end up paying today close to what you would have had to pay next year, except all the revenue would go to the provider rather than ESPN.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top