# When did D* start to suck?



## JaserLet (Dec 13, 2005)

When I bought my first D* receiver (an old slow RCA) about ten years ago the dealer sold me an installation kit and wished me luck. I was so happy with all of the new channels that I didn't care it took me 3 hours to install!

When I bought my DVR39 two years ago at Best Buy it cost less than I was expecting, came with a free dish and second non-DVR receiver. I was planning on installing it myself, but was surprised when a D* installer called me up the next day (!!!) and asked when he should stop by to install it, free of charge. That customer service, and the nifty new DTivo, had me soooo impressed with D*!!

When I bought my HR10-250 a few months ago I was not expecting the 2-year commitment, nor was I expecting D* to charge for installation. The lame HD package, older version of the TiVo software (my DVR39 runs 6.2), and slow rebate process has me wishing there were better alternatives. 

When did D* start to suck? I am still happy with my setup, it's way nicer than I would have ever dreamed of 10 years ago. But when did D* start to suck?


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

circa 1997 when they started adding every shopping channel in existence and over-compressing everything else.


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

If you're so unhapppy switch to cabletv.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

When they got forced into trying to provide every local station in the country and now the HD versions. IMO, it is just stupid. Especially, when you consider the resources they have had to spend to do this instead of providing national HD channels.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JimSpence said:


> When they got forced into trying to provide every local station in the country and now the HD versions. IMO, it is just stupid. Especially, when you consider the resources they have had to spend to do this instead of providing national HD channels.


Still it's not like there's all that many national HD channels DirecTV doesn't carry that actually offer a majority of their schedule in real HD.


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

JimSpence said:


> When they got forced into trying to provide every local station in the country and now the HD versions.


In hindsight, D* and E* should have come to an agreement to dual broadcast locals. There is no reason every local channel needs to be up there twice.


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

Stanley Rohner said:


> If you're so unhapppy switch to cabletv.


Cable's worse. My cable company is on its 3rd, soon to be 4th owner in 12 years. No HD, just got DVR's etc. Only good thing is fast and stable internet. Probably because they lagged behind DSL for 1.5 years and don't have large base sucking up bandwidth.


----------



## JaserLet (Dec 13, 2005)

I'm still happy overall with D*, just not as happy as I once was. I live in the boonies, so cable is not an option. I've played with the Dish Network gear at RadioShack, but haven't been impressed enough to make the switch. Maybe I could learn some foreign languages and go with an oldschool big dish! 

Being a DirecTV customer today is kind of like being a Mac user in the early 1990s, it's just not as great as it once was, almost as though the company has fallen asleep at the wheel, they're still moving forward but it doesn't seem like the best direction. Oh, well, hopefully they'll wow us again in the future.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

When Rupert bought the place.


----------



## Jabberer (Oct 4, 2000)

I agree with ADent - when Murdock bought 'em is the day they started really going down hill. When I originally subscribed, they were the technology leader - better picture than cable, more variety than cable, more innovation in services *and* cheaper than cable. Over the last few years, nearly every advantage they had has been erroded away - including, with this latest rumored price increase, price. I still see no specific reason to actually switch away, but now, when someone asks why they should select DTV over cable, I just don't have much to say...


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

Things have certainly eroded, but not bad enough to go to cable. Let's hope Rupert's deep pockets can add something to DirecTV versus us just adding to his deep pockets.


----------



## apollo8fan (Oct 23, 2003)

ADent said:


> When Rupert bought the place.


Amen to that!


----------



## apollo8fan (Oct 23, 2003)

morgantown said:


> Things have certainly eroded, but not bad enough to go to cable. Let's hope Rupert's deep pockets can add something to DirecTV versus us just adding to his deep pockets.


Yep, I agree with your analogy. But, Rupert knows what his competition is. He's going to push us to the edge of tolerance, knowing that he needs to stay just short of the line where we will all start switching to E* or cable.

I've seen SD E* channels on an HDTV; still worse than D*, but D* is closing the gap for sure!


----------



## Mark W (Dec 6, 2001)

Years ago, DirecTV had a big lead over the cable companies, in product quality, service, and picture quality. In their products, they got complacent and stagnated. The cable company has just about caught up. Service wise again, DirecTV stagnated, and the cable companies for the most part got a lot better. Easy for them to do, considering how nightmarishly bad they used to be. With picture quality, DirecTV actually got much worse. They crammed more channels in, and are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the average screen size has gone up dramatically in the past five years. What looks fantastic on a 27" screen can look really bad on a 42" screen.

HD has been a bad thing for them too. They have had to spend billions just to try and catch up with cable there. I agree with most here, DirecTV doesn't suck, but the huge gap between them and the cable companies is about gone.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

It sucks when an uneducated population buys in the mpeg4 thing and then when it's all hooked up they realize no WB and UPN and PBS! Let's be serious, who reads the fine print in the literature besides us tivo-heads?  All most people probably see is 'locals in hi def!!!"

It sucks when there's no new HDtivo on the horizon.

Other than that, I'm directvs biggest advocate but these 2 things made me stop bragging to friends recently. They sure have better offerings on cable.


----------



## apollo8fan (Oct 23, 2003)

newsposter said:


> It sucks when an uneducated population buys in the mpeg4 thing and then when it's all hooked up they realize no WB and UPN and PBS! Let's be serious, who reads the fine print in the literature besides us tivo-heads?  All most people probably see is 'locals in hi def!!!"<snip>


I have to explain over and over and over again that DIGITAL does not necessarily equate to QUALITY. I try to explain bandwidth to my friends, but to no avail. If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say, "but it's digital..."; usually when talking about digital cable.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I got Direct TV three years ago just for the two tuner TiVo. For 2 1/2 years before that I had a standalone TiVo and Comcast. Every year since then Direct has raised their rates, and this year seems no exception.
At the time I bought the Directivo I didn't know that Direct would abandon TiVo and not give it the same upgrades the standalone unit recieved. When I upgraded to HDTV about a year ago I did not know that Direct would use new satellites and an MPEG4 signal to require me to get new equipment to get any new HD channels. I am wondering if my move to Direct was a good idea.


----------



## Billy Bob Boy (Jul 25, 2004)

D* is the only way to go in s fla for 2 reasons 1. They should rename Florida from "The Sunshine State" To "The Construction State" Constant roads being torn up leave endless interuptions in cable. Unless you happen to live next door to the cable co. 2. storms that knock out cable systems due to downed lines and up rooted trees. Even after power is restored It can be weeks to get cable back. During hurricain wilma I never lost D*. My dish is super anchored and hurricains rarely cause rain fade. Besides even with rain fade it only lasts a few minutes. I may have lost 3 or 4 shows over the last 5 years due to rain fade, but I lost my cable days in a row because of construction fade. several neighbors came to my home after wilma to get their daily dose of tv.


----------



## JaserLet (Dec 13, 2005)

The increased compression means my 40 hour DVR is now a 55 hour DVR! Yay!!!

But seriously, I remember the first time I noticed the increased compression. I had a brand new 32 inch TV and was really impressed with the D* picture quality... until about the time D* took over the Viacom channels from USSB and added MSNBC. Somewhere around that time there was an evening where I started noticing the compression artifacts and it has only gotten worse over time.

Last night I noticed some TV commercial which showed a blue sky in the background, the entire sky "gradient" was made up of two shades of blue with an obvious zigzagging seam splitting the two. Compression artifacting at its best.

Although, I have to wonder if the prevalence of compression has something to do with this. When D* was new, most video people were using BetacamSP (analog component video). Now DV25 (MiniDV, DVCAM, DVCPro) is the norm. Think about it, video is now shot used a compressed format (DV), then edited and put back to tape (DV) or burnt to DVD (MPEG2). This is transmitted to D* using who knows what codec, and then broadcast back to us using either another pass of MEPG2 or in some cases MPEG4. Compressed compressed artifacts of artifacts. And for the really lucky, high definition compression artifacts! Hehe!


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Don't get me wrong, I won't go the cable route since TWC in my area is nowhere near DirecTV's offerings. Not entirely their fault, only PBS and ABC are OTA HD. But I'm keeping an eye on developments. 

But, to reiterate what I've asked many times here. Why the hell doesn't DirecTV offer a DNS version of WB or UPN? At least a regional version for those of us that have yet to receive the stupid locals? Right now I pay Dish Network for their Superstation pack.


----------



## goony (Nov 20, 2003)

herdfan said:


> In hindsight, D* and E* should have come to an agreement to dual broadcast locals. There is no reason every local channel needs to be up there twice.


Would not work - incompatable receivers - I think D* uses "almost MPEG2" and E* uses "standard MPEG2". There also the problem with authorizing reception on the smartcards, etc. Finally, even if the above items were not an obstacle, they would have needed a 'common' satellite that both companies could have a dish to point to.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

If you think about it, cable is local area dependent and DirecTV is country wide. My local Comcast beats DirecTV in HD and offers more channels but then the Comcast in my area doesn't have to also carry local channels for the entire country, special business channels, multiple foreign language packages, etc.... I am sure their quality would fade, the compression would raise, if they did.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

goony said:


> Would not work - incompatable receivers - I think D* uses "almost MPEG2" and E* uses "standard MPEG2". There also the problem with authorizing reception on the smartcards, etc. Finally, even if the above items were not an obstacle, they would have needed a 'common' satellite that both companies could have a dish to point to.


Urban myth...the MPEG standards used by both companies are 100% compatible. They DO have a satellite location in common - two in fact: 110° and 119°WL. Echostar has 21 frequencies at 119, and DirecTV has 11, while E* has 29 at 110 and DirecTV has 3. At one point there WAS some discussion between the companies that would have resulted in E* getting all of 119, in exchange for an equivalent amount of capacity at 110. The only technical issue is that E* uses DVB signal encoding and DirecTV uses the proprietary DSS system, but that could have been worked out. From there, it would have been logical for the two providers to use 110 for locals, and not too great a leap to send both system's CA and EPG formats in the data.

The talks got stuck on DirecTV's demand for 16 transponders at 110 (half of the total) and E* wanting 18 (the net after a 1 for 1 swap for the 119 transponders).


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I'm sure we all know it, but I sorta laugh when cable disses satellite. They get their HBO from the same bird we do!!!! And when I pass by my cable co, I see about 15 satellite dishes. And they have the nerve to say satellite sucks!


----------



## BlankMan (Mar 30, 2002)

JaserLet said:


> When did D* start to suck? I am still happy with my setup, it's way nicer than I would have ever dreamed of 10 years ago. But when did D* start to suck?


They been working real hard at it the last year or so, and doing a pretty good job at it I might add.


----------



## Dood (Feb 21, 2003)

It started to suck hard with the release of the R-15. What a big pile of steaming crap that is!!!!!!


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

Jabberer said:


> I agree with ADent - when Murdock bought 'em is the day they started really going down hill. When I originally subscribed, they were the technology leader - better picture than cable, more variety than cable, more innovation in services *and* cheaper than cable. Over the last few years, nearly every advantage they had has been erroded away - including, with this latest rumored price increase, price. I still see no specific reason to actually switch away, but now, when someone asks why they should select DTV over cable, I just don't have much to say...


Funny how Murdock has only had Directv now for a bit over 1 year.

I think you are confusing Murdock with the inability of Directv to do anything for almost 18 months when Charlie (Dish) was trying to buy them. That was when Cable began to take steps to pass Directv. 
My only regret with Directv at the moment is they did not use their relationship with Hughs sooner to put up more Satellites. In the long run they will easily outdistance cable for HD content, but it will take almost 2 years to do it.

By the way. Why did they charge you for installation?? I remember in 94 putting up my first dish, but by 97 Directv has always done it for free. Heck they even came out once and corrected the alignment for free.
I think I would have called customer retention to ask for a free install. Or at the very least asked for a comp on my package lineup. 
Sorry to hear about your dismay with Directv. For some reason I am stoked with all the new changes. I can not wait for my new DVR. I love TIVO, but I want more HD. And I am willing to give Murdock the chance to prove himself.


----------



## Jabberer (Oct 4, 2000)

Hersheytx said:


> Funny how Murdock has only had Directv now for a bit over 1 year.
> 
> I think you are confusing Murdock with the inability of Directv to do anything for almost 18 months when Charlie (Dish) was trying to buy them. That was when Cable began to take steps to pass Directv.


You make a valid point here - some of the things I don't like about DTV have a history that goes back before Murdock. Let me rephrase then - it seems to be going down hill at a much accelerated rate since he bought the company. My feeling, without actually looking anything up  is that things started to flake out about the time GM started shopping around to sell - I guess I made the connection "shopping around = Rupert = no so great changes". But I still think Mudock is damaging the company. Everything the man touches gets tacky - just look at TV Guide if you need proof, all they need is to go to an all black and white format and they can give The Weekly World News a run for thier money.


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

Dood said:


> It started to suck hard with the release of the R-15. What a big pile of steaming crap that is!!!!!!


Just curious. Have you tried the R-15? You have first hand knowledge of this crappy dvr?


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

Jabberer said:


> You make a valid point here - some of the things I don't like about DTV have a history that goes back before Murdock. Let me rephrase then - it seems to be going down hill at a much accelerated rate since he bought the company. My feeling, without actually looking anything up  is that things started to flake out about the time GM started shopping around to sell - I guess I made the connection "shopping around = Rupert = no so great changes". But I still think Mudock is damaging the company. Everything the man touches gets tacky - just look at TV Guide if you need proof, all they need is to go to an all black and white format and they can give The Weekly World News a run for thier money.


I take your TV Guide raise you BskyB


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Hersheytx said:


> ...My only regret with Directv at the moment is they did not use their relationship with Hughs sooner to put up more Satellites. In the long run they will easily outdistance cable for HD content, but it will take almost 2 years to do it....


Not bloody likely...even if DirecTV had 3 times the capacity of their Ku and Ka slots, cable would still have more bandwidth.

Satellite capacity is not the real issue, commitment to quality is. DirecTV has, in the last 12 months, seriously degraded picture quality of BOTH the HD and SD content, replaced what was arguably the best available DVR system with another system that has a dubious track record, imposed restrictive business terms on customers, and raised prices (soon to be twice).

This is what has long time customer dismayed.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

Dan Collins said:


> Not bloody likely...even if DirecTV had 3 times the capacity of their Ku and Ka slots, cable would still have more bandwidth.
> 
> Satellite capacity is not the real issue, commitment to quality is. DirecTV has, in the last 12 months, seriously degraded picture quality of BOTH the HD and SD content, replaced what was arguably the best available DVR system with another system that has a dubious track record, imposed restrictive business terms on customers, and raised prices (soon to be twice).
> 
> This is what has long time customer dismayed.


dubious track record? the thing has been out for only 3months

raised prices (soon to be twice). that is all still romer even with the alleged "faxs" until there is a press release BY DIRECTV


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

newsposter said:


> I'm sure we all know it, but I sorta laugh when cable disses satellite. They get their HBO from the same bird we do!!!! And when I pass by my cable co, I see about 15 satellite dishes. And they have the nerve to say satellite sucks!


Indeed, when I had cable when I first moved to NH, it was the worst of both worlds: noisy analog signal that showed bad artificacting and rain fade every time it snowed. Brilliant.

Now it's not an issue, since the cable company wants $14,000/mile to install cable to my place, leaving me with a $5k bill if I want cable. So unless I get desperate for a cable modem, this place will remain cable-less and I will stay with D*.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

Dan Collins said:


> Not bloody likely...even if DirecTV had 3 times the capacity of their Ku and Ka slots, cable would still have more bandwidth.
> 
> Satellite capacity is not the real issue, commitment to quality is. DirecTV has, in the last 12 months, seriously degraded picture quality of BOTH the HD and SD content, replaced what was arguably the best available DVR system with another system that has a dubious track record, imposed restrictive business terms on customers, and raised prices (soon to be twice).
> 
> This is what has long time customer dismayed.


To top it off, why not charge customers the same amount to own equipment then, change the monthly fee to "lease fees." Semantics...hardly.

Still better than cable, but it's getting closer.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lee espinoza said:


> dubious track record? the thing has been out for only 3months...


The "DirecTV-Plus DVR" is the US version of the BSkyB "Sky-Plus DVR" which has been around for a couple of years. It's track record in the UK is less than stellar (with most of the problems being reported by early adopters here). This is why comments like "it will get better" are, I'm afraid, wishful thinking. They've had years to get it right in the UK and have not been able to as of yet.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

Dan Collins said:


> The "DirecTV-Plus DVR" is the US version of the BSkyB "Sky-Plus DVR" which has been around for a couple of years. It's track record in the UK is less than stellar (with most of the problems being reported by early adopters here). This is why comments like "it will get better" are, I'm afraid, wishful thinking. They've had years to get it right in the UK and have not been able to as of yet.


So the "DirecTV developed the software internally" is a bunch of mularchy? I'd say one look at NDS' website (XTVtoGo, etc.) makes it pretty clear DTV's development pretty much consisted of "we'll take 500,000 of whatever you got."


----------



## Dood (Feb 21, 2003)

itsmeitsmeitsme said:


> Just curious. Have you tried the R-15? You have first hand knowledge of this crappy dvr?


Yes. I am on my 3rd unit. I figure the 4th one will be along in a few weeks. What a total piece of junk. The good thing is they keep giving me free ones and refunded my initial cost.


----------



## alexcue (Apr 1, 2000)

ADent said:


> When Rupert bought the place.


Rupert, he gummed up the works. :down:


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

JaserLet said:


> When did D* start to suck? I am still happy with my setup, it's way nicer than I would have ever dreamed of 10 years ago. But when did D* start to suck?


When General Motors/Hughes wanted to sell it real bad and Murdoch bought it.

That is when DirecTV really started to SUCK.

Now we have NO TIVO, MUSIC CHOICE for XM RADIO SWAP, LEASED EQUIPMENT, and the all new for 2006 - NO RATE INCREASE/RATE INCREASE. (Kind of like the famous "Read My Lips" line from 1980.)

And all of this has been bought to you by the "NEW PEOPLE AT DIRECTV".

Additional Edit:

In the past, starting all the way back in 1994, most of the news that came out DirecTV was usually good, now at the very least the news is shades of gray. Let's hope for everybody's good that the news actually gets better in the future.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

I like their commercials, how DTV has changed TV, by offering way more sports and all this for less than $1 a day. Where can I find this package? Seems that TC is the lowest, am I missing something?


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

super dave said:


> I like their commercials, how DTV has changed TV, by offering way more sports and all this for less than $1 a day. Where can I find this package? Seems that TC is the lowest, am I missing something?


There are other packages, but you have to call DirecTV to get the information. There is a package that is less than the standard TOTAL CHOICE, but then again neither of those packages offer WAY MORE SPORTS. If you want sports, you have to pay for them.


----------



## skinnyjm (Feb 10, 2005)

super dave said:


> I like their commercials, how DTV has changed TV, by offering way more sports and all this for less than $1 a day. Where can I find this package? Seems that TC is the lowest, am I missing something?





tbeckner said:


> There are other packages, but you have to call DirecTV to get the information. There is a package that is less than the standard TOTAL CHOICE, but then again neither of those packages offer WAY MORE SPORTS. If you want sports, you have to pay for them.


Good point guys!
If my math is right, then,
365+365+365+366=1461/48=30.4375
So any package priced $30.44 (or higher) is MORE than a dollar a day,
and this is taking in to account for Leap Year!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lee espinoza said:


> dubious track record? the thing has been out for only 3months
> 
> raised prices (soon to be twice). that is all still romer even with the alleged "faxs" until there is a press release BY DIRECTV


they have pages explaining the new pricing on their website.


----------



## ironchef (Dec 27, 2002)

newsposter said:


> It sucks when an uneducated population buys in the mpeg4 thing and then when it's all hooked up they realize no WB and UPN and PBS! Let's be serious, who reads the fine print in the literature besides us tivo-heads?  All most people probably see is 'locals in hi def!!!"


And - Hi speed USB ports (flame on)


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

usb ports are for your mouse right? or was that a wireless keyboard?  darn this thumb drive just wont work in here


----------

