[TheFerret]

While its always difficult to get a motor-home to turn on a dime I am seeing a condition I wonder about with DirecTV and its future 3-5 years down the line. There are only so many birds you can fill the sky with and only so much expansion in channels offer and bandwidth requirements for increasing HD demand.


I would imagine the only way this will be [technically] easily is through the wide-spread implementation of better CODEC's in the compressed portion of the video transport. The problem I think D* sees themselves faced with is the cost of one solution versus another solution.


The thought of upgrading 12 million households with >12 million STB's boggles the mind, but the increasing costs and lead-in time requirement for additional birds for addition bandwidth is just as boggling to me. So, if you were running DirecTV, which option would you enter into?

 

[TheFerret]

20 views and three vote (one was mine). Pitiful.

 

[ChrisW6ATV]

Oops-I voted for 'strip channels' but because I want better quality on the existing ones.

 

[bdfox18doe]

Perhaps that's because many of us are tired of these what-if blue sky polls

that take up server time and bandwidth?

 

[TheFerret]

Are you paying for this, Bob? Your reply contributed to your perceived problem did it not? Of course, it is a holiday and maybe that this week will offer something better in response.

 

[turt]

I'm a stripper.

 

[stevenjw]

I voted for other. They need to commit to more HDTV now. If Voom had PVR, I'd be gone. D* costs for equipment and HD package are rediculous. Heck, I'm still waiting for my HD-TiVo box that continues to be delayed (ordered 1/29). If it has problems, I get my money back and bye-bye D*.

 

[Charles R]

If I was running the company I would stay the course as I'm sure it's the most profitable. And as much as I would have liked to see the WC games in HD I certainly understand why they didn't pickup the channel since I'm sure I wouldn't be watching anything else on it... at least for now.

 

[TheFerret]

Charles, would you stay the course if it meant falling behind the competition? I think AOL did this by staying their course in not deploying broadband services, because they wanted to maintain current profits from their dial-up customers. Now, AOL is hurting big-time.

 

[Chipper539]

DirecTV need more HDTV channels. My girlfriend has Time Warner cable and I love the "on demand" aspects of her programming. That would be a huge addition. Other than Playboy, it would be nice to have a monthly subscription available to the other adult channels rather than just have Pay per view.

 

[Rick_R]

Add 1394.


Rick R

 

[TheFerret]

I seriously doubt that the liability involved with adding Firewire would make it past the board of directors since the FCC cannot and will not protect BS providers in this area. I do second your motion, though.

 

[Charles R]

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFerret Charles, would you stay the course if it meant falling behind the competition?

How so? Do you know what their current course is - never less the reasons they are on it? I find it rather interesting that total strangers know how to run billion dollar companies better then their own informed management.


Regarding AOL staying with dial-up as long as they can makes total sense. They are even offering new less expensive plans. Since dial-up customers are (highly) profitable versus unprofitable broadband customers. And they have been offering their own broadband for years... the only debate would be how well they have not whether they should throw their dial-up customers away.


It's not glamorous but it's their job to make money and they do not have the luxury of tunnel vision.

 

[Ratman]

How about hiring CSR's that have a clue?

(that would appropriate for providers also)

 

[HDDJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ratman How about hiring CSR's that have a clue? (that would appropriate for providers also)

I say "apply", they are hiring right now

 

[TheFerret]

Charles, I may be a stranger, but I never stated I knew how to run a billion dollar company. BTW, many 'suits' that ran billion dollar companies ran them into the ground during the past five years. So, what does that tell you? Enron rings a bell, and Worldcom, Adelphia, etc. If I had a nickel for every shareholder taken for a ride I wouldn't need to worry about the future--unless I hire one of those suits I just mentioned.

 

[Don H]

I would change my tailor.

 

[jfklennon]

I would bring in Donald Trump for the dirty work, remove all standard def channels, re-launch the service from Jackson, Mississippi, strip out all packages and ala carte the entire roster of HD channels... would then file chapter 13 sometime later.

 

[Ratman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles R Since dial-up customers are (highly) profitable versus unprofitable broadband customers. And they have been offering their own broadband for years... the only debate would be how well they have not whether they should throw their dial-up customers away.

That's debatable...

Providing an 'internet' connection would require the same hardware (switches/routers/servers/etc) whether is via POTS, cable, satellite, DSL.


They all use a physical transport that already exists in most homes (phone, satellite, cable). Therefore, AOL may be at a loss since they need to provide answering modems, channels banks, and a service provider for incoming analog phone calls (and probably a lot of analog modems). I believe that most would opt to move to cable/DSL for and extra $10 a month for the performance boost and incentives (Verizon offers a free router).


Also... if a dial subscriber doesn't want to tie up a phone... they may have two phones. With the money they save from the voice line, it offsets the additional cost(s).


They are now being undercut by NetZero (et al) in the dial world.


IMO... they will eventually move away as a 'dial provider' and focus as a 'marketing/retailer/advertiser' as opposed to an Internet Provider.


I could be wrong...

 

[Charles R]

To me changing some thing is taking control or telling it how to be run... though basically I meant generally as so often people post about how crazy a company is not to do this or that simply because it does not suit their desires.


I would love DirecTV to have around 20 channels all in HD and pitch the rest but I certainly understand why that isn't the case. And if their business model dictates LiLs over HD fine. I can always switch providers if I feel another is better suited for my desires.


I'm not saying management is perfect or even close to it. Simply that they have a whole lot more facts and or knowledge regarding the company's well being.