# TNT-HD coming soon?!!(pic inside)



## bluntedat420 (Mar 17, 2002)

I was thumbing through the Crutchfield catalog that arrived in the mail today when I noticed something on the DirecTV page:










In case you can't tell, below the TNT it says 'high definition high drama'. This seems to portent an upcoming addition of TNTHD? All of the other channels in this picture are channels we receive.

Just my $.02

Todd


----------



## swifty (Mar 31, 2002)

My guess is someone who has no idea what DirecTV has to offer in HD put that together. I though the consensus was that D* didn't have enough bandwidth to add additional HD channels until they started using MPEG4.


----------



## Ein (Jul 7, 2004)

swifty said:


> My guess is someone who has no idea what DirecTV has to offer in HD put that together. I though the consensus was that D* didn't have enough bandwidth to add additional HD channels until they started using MPEG4.


How do you think they broadcasted all those HD football games on Sunday, if they didn't have some reserved bandwidth?

it's only one more HD channel.


----------



## MiamiTV (Apr 8, 2003)

Look at the HR10-350 it's an OLD Standard TiVo, so I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the it Logos. The guy was just cutting and pastings any HD logos he could find.


----------



## mirosco (Mar 1, 2002)

Here's excerpt of an e-mail that DirecTV sent to me concerning their HDTV package including TNT HD:

Thanks for asking us about our HDTV package. As you might imagine, high-definition channels are some of the most expensive ones for us to carry, both in terms of what we pay the networks to distribute their programming and the technology we use to deliver them. As a result, the price per channel in this package is higher than most of our other packages.

...

While DIRECTV doesn't have an agreement with TNT HD right now, we are in discussions with them and we hope to add TNT HD to our lineup soon. I don't have a date to give you yet, but stay tuned...

However, we believe that our pricing is quite competitive with what others are charging for HD service. DISH Network charges $9.99 per mo. for its HD Pak, and many cable companies require a subscription to a digital tier of service, in addition to $2-$10 per mo. for rental of a high-definition receiver.

...

We're committed to providing the best in HDTV programming and we're in constant discussions with program providers to continue adding new channels and programming. *However, we often add programming based on customer requests, and I have forwarded your request to DIRECTV management.*

Thanks again for writing and stay tuned ... for the latest news and information about HD programming


----------



## bluntedat420 (Mar 17, 2002)

Dang! And I was all excited that maybe Crutchfield knew something we didn't. Oh well, I guess that is ANOTHER HD channel I can get through my cable company, my phone company, or Dish, but not D*.


----------



## maharg18 (Dec 4, 2002)

Ein said:


> How do you think they broadcasted all those HD football games on Sunday, if they didn't have some reserved bandwidth?


They had to shut down practically all the PPV channels on Sundays to make room!


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Ein said:


> How do you think they broadcasted all those HD football games on Sunday, if they didn't have some reserved bandwidth?
> 
> it's only one more HD channel.


I agree it's only one more channel. But, DirecTV borrows the bandwidth from the PPV channels. Having said that, why can't they permamently borrow it for TNT-HD?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I know this is beating a dead horse, but if DTV would drop most of the sports stuff including all the millions of PPV sports they'd have lots more room for HD channels.

I have complained to them about the massive amount of sports channels and the poor quality of all the other channels as well as the lack of any real HD selection. They dont seem to be concerned. I guess when those channels make them money they'd rather satisfy the sports fanatics instead of the rest of their customer base.


----------



## taj2 (Aug 18, 2003)

Sadly they have enough bandwidth to broadcast the worthless CD USA in HD. (Those who love the channel do not take offense I just feel they could offer something that has broader appeal).

Last weekend they shut the HD PPV down on Saturday which is a joke. I would think that would be a busy day.

I hope they get thier HD act together soon because I am losing patience.....


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

taj2 said:


> I hope they get their HD act together soon because I am losing patience.....


I hear that! I keep reading other boards regarding HD and see DN is going to have 25 channels by mid year, just when my commitment is up. If things stay pat here I will try another service, and the other 2 don't have a commitment.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Comcast should have TNT HD in your area Dave. Washington state launched last month.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA~!


----------



## vernsh (Sep 25, 2004)

rkester said:


> I know this is beating a dead horse, but if DTV would drop most of the sports stuff including all the millions of PPV sports they'd have lots more room for HD channels.


Well, they charge BIG BUCKS for sports presentations in HD while charging a flat rate for everything else. As you've said, it's all about the money.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

People with enough money and time to waste on sports should be forced to buy a new dish and get that junk off another satellite. All that sports stuff (plus all the locals squeezed onto the current sats) has made D* video quality worse than a badly encoded VCD. I really miss the days when D* looked good.


----------



## TimGoodwin (Jun 20, 2003)

Arcady said:


> People with enough money and time to waste on sports should be forced to buy a new dish and get that junk off another satellite. All that sports stuff (plus all the locals squeezed onto the current sats) has made D* video quality worse than a badly encoded VCD. I really miss the days when D* looked good.


Don't like the sports channels don't watch them or go somewhere else.


----------



## pudge44 (Dec 5, 2002)

Arcady said:


> People with enough money and time to waste on sports should be forced to buy a new dish and get that junk off another satellite. All that sports stuff (plus all the locals squeezed onto the current sats) has made D* video quality worse than a badly encoded VCD. I really miss the days when D* looked good.


Like it or not, sports offerings, particularly NFL Sunday Ticket, are the only thing that separates D* from cable or Dish.

D* is paying the NFL *$700 million a year for 5 years* to keep NFLST exclusive to D* through 2010. The package has roughly 2 million subscribers, and round $200 each. At that rate, they're still short $300 million a year on NFLST revenue (although high-dollar subscriptions for sports bars surely make up a good chunk of that). Why do they do it? Because it's the one differentiator between D* and everyone else. This is rampant speculation on my part, but I bet D* adds more new subscribers in August-September every year than any other time as people get ready for football season.


----------



## Seminole (Oct 27, 2003)

Arcady said:


> People with enough money and time to waste on sports should be forced to buy a new dish and get that junk off another satellite. All that sports stuff (plus all the locals squeezed onto the current sats) has made D* video quality worse than a badly encoded VCD. I really miss the days when D* looked good.


If you don't like sports switch to Dish.


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD. I'm not dying to see repeats of ER, Judging Amy, Angel, NYPD Blue & Charmed in HD...and I'm no big fan of basketball (HD or SD). I'd MUCH rather have National Geographic Channel-HD.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Well, one reason is that , at least for the rest of this season. (and maybe more as I cannot remember the details of the 07 TV deal) some NASCAR races will be on TNT HD.

Don;t get me wrong, I would love NG as well, however, I have pretty muc resigned myself to the fact that D* is content to never give either to me as I have an HR10-250 and I am unwilling to sign up for a 2 year commitment until I see what happens with the series 3 and the HDS HD DVR.


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

disco said:


> I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD.


NASCAR!

As previously mentioned.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

disco said:


> I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD. I'm not dying to see repeats of ER, Judging Amy, Angel, NYPD Blue & Charmed in HD...and I'm no big fan of basketball (HD or SD). I'd MUCH rather have National Geographic Channel-HD.


I didn't think charmed was in HD...if it is...then I really made a bad decision putting up OTA and should have just switched to my local cable


----------



## wilkins080808 (Feb 1, 2006)

I like sports - just not 24 X 7. Get a life!


----------



## TimGoodwin (Jun 20, 2003)

wilkins080808 said:


> I like sports - just not 24 X 7. Get a life!


Who said anything about 24 x 7?


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

TimGoodwin said:


> Who said anything about 24 x 7?


How do you play?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I considered moving to Dish actually because they had the HD channels out the wazoo and the pricing was similar. But ive been with DTV so long I bring myself to do it.

Id like TNT-HD, but I really want is SCIFI-HD and USA-HD, and all the other channels that have great programming. (well, except for scifi's horrible movies)


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Veronica Mars. 

And, as I've said here many times. DirecTV can find the bandwidth for two HD channels by eliminating the staggered duplicate channels for the PPV. Do they really need to use four channels for the same movie just so they can stagger the start times by 30 minutes. Some will say yes because then you don't have to wait more than 30 minutes to watch the show. Well, I say booo hooo. Also, most of the PPVs now are of the All Day Ticket variety. And, with more DVRs being used, it makes it even less needed to have staggered starts.
Okay, I'm done now.


----------



## Cheezmo (Apr 26, 2004)

I believe they shut down HD-PPV for the entire time CD USA was running. If not they would have had PPV, CD-USA and HDNet on one transponder at the same time which would have been unprecedented poor treatment of HDNet.



taj2 said:


> Sadly they have enough bandwidth to broadcast the worthless CD USA in HD. (Those who love the channel do not take offense I just feel they could offer something that has broader appeal).
> 
> Last weekend they shut the HD PPV down on Saturday which is a joke. I would think that would be a busy day.
> 
> I hope they get thier HD act together soon because I am losing patience.....


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

Cheezmo said:


> I believe they shut down HD-PPV for the entire time CD USA was running.


They did.


----------



## Todd (Oct 7, 1999)

disco said:


> I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD.


Just to reiterate, NASCAR! 

As an example, 1 week from Saturday the Bud Shootout at Daytona will be on TNTHD as will the qualifying races. And I can't get them....


----------



## Rognish (May 17, 2005)

maharg18 said:


> They had to shut down practically all the PPV channels on Sundays to make room!


 I for one think they have way to many PPV channels and they keep on adding them.


----------



## bluntedat420 (Mar 17, 2002)

disco said:


> I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD. I'm not dying to see repeats of ER, Judging Amy, Angel, NYPD Blue & Charmed in HD...and I'm no big fan of basketball (HD or SD). I'd MUCH rather have National Geographic Channel-HD.


Heck, I would be happy with ANY national HD channel that actually shows HD content (unlike ESPN2). I wouldn't care if it was TNT or NG. I was just surprised to see this ad, and I would have posted the picture if the graphic showed NGHD instead. I don't watch much sports or Nascar, but I do find myself watching more and more of the sports in HD just because they look soooooo much better that all other non-HD programming.

I guess our lust for HD is forcing us to reconsider the offerings from our local cable and telcos.

Todd


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

I want TNT more than any other channel at the moment, I've been waiting forever

My reasons for TNT

NBA 
XFiles


----------



## Lucky 777 (Apr 2, 2005)

They'll be losing my business if they don't get more HD programming on. They could dump many of the PPV channels, all of the music channels, all of the foreign programming, the endless home shopping channels.....etc.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

someone said they kill ppv to open it up to sunday ticket. So ppv must not make 'that' much money right?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I'm sure Sunday Ticker makes more, but that is only the weekend. PPV makes a bunch other times. But, as I said and others have said, do we really need multiple PPV channels for the same movie?

Do cable companies have multiple channels for PPV?


----------



## hiker (Nov 29, 2001)

JimSpence said:


> Do cable companies have multiple channels for PPV?


Not needed here since Comcast provides On-Demand movies ($3.99), including about a dozen in HD ($5.99). On-Demand allows you to start viewing at any time and to pause and save to resume viewing later just like DVR.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

If they add TNTHD before "The Closer" starts new eps, that would be the thing that gets me to add the HD Pak again. The ONLY thing. I'd like FXHD, too, but that's just probably a wet dream.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

disco said:


> I honestly don't understand the passion and desire people have for TNT-HD. I'm not dying to see repeats of ER, Judging Amy, Angel, NYPD Blue & Charmed in HD...and I'm no big fan of basketball (HD or SD). I'd MUCH rather have National Geographic Channel-HD.


I hear you on that! Why not get rid of some of the worthless HD offerings in the current HD package (that I no longer subscribe to--what a waste of money!)? If they put National Geographic Channel-HD in the package I would probably opt for it once again--even if they dropped 2 or 3 other channels that endlessly repeat stuff that has been rebroadcast ad-nauseum for the past year or more!


----------



## sp1dey (Jul 21, 2005)

Just curious if the recent PAX development would free up enough Bandwidth for TNT-HD or NG-HD? I guess as of 2/28 channel 255 (PAX National feed) is gone, along with many of the local markets.


----------



## joetoronto (Jul 26, 2004)

personally, i'd much rather see another HD movie channel.


----------



## hiker (Nov 29, 2001)

DIRECTV Further Expands HD Offering With the Launch of TNT in HD


> ATLANTA, Feb 08, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Turner Network Television (TNT) announced today that it has entered into an agreement with DIRECTV, Inc. to provide customers with the high-definition (HD) feed of TNT. The service will launch on DIRECTV on Friday, Feb. 17 and will be available on DIRECTV channel 75. The 24/7 HD presentation of the TNT East Coast feed will offer DIRECTV's customers a wide range of dramatic programming in HDTV format, including sports such as live NBA games and NASCAR races; series; movies; and TNT Originals.


----------



## sp1dey (Jul 21, 2005)

WooHoo!!!!! Not to be greedy, but think NGHD is around the corner?


----------



## durl (Dec 1, 2005)

I'd say it is. Since it's also owned by NewsCorp, I'm sure they want it to have exposure on Directv.


----------



## Wolffpack (May 28, 2003)

NASCAR in HD. Why? Do we really need to see cars go 'round and 'round the track in HD? Can't we tell the difference between the cars in SD? I don't get that one.


----------



## pudge44 (Dec 5, 2002)

I have no use for Nascar, and not much for the NBA, but it's no accident that D* has added TNT before other networks, and it has a lot to do with the presence of those sports on TNT's airwaves. 

Love 'em or hate 'em, sports are a huge driver of HD. Sports fans are willing to go to great lengths to watch their favorite games, including shelling out for expensive equipment, special programming packages, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have chosen Cable over D* because of the ability to watch Nascar in HD. Less so have probably made the same choice over NGC.


----------



## RMSko (Sep 4, 2001)

I assume that TNT HD will only be offerred as part of the HD package. Does anyone know if that is correct?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

RMSko said:


> I assume that TNT HD will only be offerred as part of the HD package. Does anyone know if that is correct?


Yes that is correct.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Wolffpack said:


> NASCAR in HD. Why? Do we really need to see cars go 'round and 'round the track in HD? Can't we tell the difference between the cars in SD? I don't get that one.


you need to see the sponsor tags for the companies that can only pay a few hundred bucks to put a sticker on the bottom of the door.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

The same argument against NASCAR can be made against any sport. FOr everyone that like sit, there are several that do not.


----------



## Wolffpack (May 28, 2003)

Lee L said:


> The same argument against NASCAR can be made against any sport. FOr everyone that like sit, there are several that do not.


I disagree. A wide shot of football players on the field in SD on at large screen doesn't give you the detail you need to even tell who's who. Let alone to let you know where the ball is.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Wolffpack said:


> I disagree. A wide shot of football players on the field in SD on at large screen doesn't give you the detail you need to even tell who's who. Let alone to let you know where the ball is.


In SD, a long shot looking down the front stretch of a 2 mile racetrack does not allow you to see who is who. Let alone who is in what position.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Wolffpack said:


> I disagree. A wide shot of football players on the field in SD on at large screen doesn't give you the detail you need to even tell who's who. Let alone to let you know where the ball is.


And considering what most of the NFL players look like, that's a good argument for more wide shots.


----------

