# Sat TV Growth Dropping



## osultan (Dec 1, 2003)

There is in article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115473942525727676.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_mm for folks that have a sub) that talks about a significant drop in sat tv sub growth. As an example, D* added 255,000 subscribers in Q1 vs 505,000 for the same period last year. At the same time, cable is taking off based on PQ, channel availability and the ability to offer bundles (TV, phone, internet).

I wonder is this will prompt D* to start innovating again? The article also mentioned there is investor pressure for D* and E* to merger operations.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

IMO, the increase in cable subs is mostly due to the bundling of services.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Bundled services is one reason, but there are others. Cable may offer more channels you want (Showtime Beyond, HBO Zone) or more local channels in HD. Cable also has On Demand, satellite users cannot watch Howard Stern.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

Let's see how DTV & E*'s purchase of spectum works out. It will require a huge out lay of cash to get things to the point where users will actually benefit. Hopefully it will ultimately provide a lower cost basis to provide broadband 2 way connectivity. More than just the triple play, there should be lots of other uses as well.


----------



## Leila (Apr 28, 2006)

I have been with DirecTV for about 8 or 9 years. 

My prime concern is picture quality. Right now, 
DirecTV has way better PQ than my local cable
company's so-caled "digital cable" service. (both
HD and SD)

The local Verizon still can't offer FIOS TV to my 
home, not for another year or two, at the earliest.

Of course, if the local cable company or Verizon
can get their act together and match or exceed
DirecTV's PQ, I'll switch without hesitation.


----------



## hijammer (Aug 27, 2003)

I also thnk the whle leasing thing has contributed to the drop mainly with the higher end users, who wants to shell out $400 for a box you need to give back to them and/or have a commitment to them and still have to return the box to them. Also the mpeg 4 switch and needing new equipment i would thikn scar away more new HD customers that could just rent a DVR from their cable co.


----------



## tase2 (Sep 27, 2004)

hijammer said:


> I also thnk the whle leasing thing has contributed to the drop mainly with the higher end users, who wants to shell out $400 for a box you need to give back to them and/or have a commitment to them and still have to return the box to them. Also the mpeg 4 switch and needing new equipment i would thikn scar away more new HD customers that could just rent a DVR from their cable co.


I agree with all the above. Once Series 3 or Comcast's Tivo box comes out. Bye Bye D*

I have crappy OTA reception, and who wants an ugly 1970's style antenna in their roof.


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

Leila said:


> I have been with DirecTV for about 8 or 9 years.
> 
> My prime concern is picture quality. Right now,
> DirecTV has way better PQ than my local cable
> ...


When did you last have your cableco hook up a digital box to your tv? I switched 6 months ago to comcast and in my area they converted all channels to digital. PQ is much better in SD and HD as compared to D* (some cable sd looks almost like hd and the hd is stunning!). This is only when viewing channels through the moto box and cablecard. The comcast analog feed that runs straight to the tv looks like it did 10 years ago (horrible).

So if you are looking at a picture on your set straight from the cable, you are not seeing the "digital" picture which is only available through their digital box or cablecard.

Call first and make sure your area has converted to all digital before you switch. Unfortunately some areas in the country are behind in the conversion.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

It will be a long time before FIOS comes to my area. And TWC isn't a very good option for me either.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

tase2 said:


> I have crappy OTA reception, and who wants an ugly 1970's style antenna in their roof.


Anyone who wants the best possible HD picture quality, perhaps? Nothing is better than OTA...


----------



## Runch Machine (Feb 7, 2002)

I agree with Cheer. For best picture and highest reliability OTA is the only way to go. No matter how hard it rains or snows, I never lose my local channels which are received by my attic antenna.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I concur, but it's not just an opinion, it's a fact. Even if a secondary vendor gets a direct feed of the HD program directly from a network affiliate station, there is nothing that they can do to improve upon the PQ. Any damage from compression is already done, and about all that might happen after that would be a second round of compression by the secondary vendor, which can never result in an improvement.

And, virtually all DBS and cable systems get their HD feeds from DT stations OTA anyway, so reliability for the end user can only be worse than that of direct OTA.


----------



## hijammer (Aug 27, 2003)

Te big problem with OTa is quality depends on location and if you don't have a very good signal the DD5.1 audio keeps dropping out or atleast mine did and i t was very anoying since my reciver has a thunk when it switches the signals for DD5.1 to prologic so OTa not very satifying for me.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Picture quality and reception quality are two completely separate issues. DT PQ is not affected by reception parameters, and vice versa.

Reception quality can vary significantly by location, while PQ is quite often fixed, except in the case where a particular affiliate starves the available bits by multicasting. CBS O&O stations do not multicast, and virtually all send SMPTE310-formatted video at approximately 18 mb/s, so no matter where you live, assuming you live in one of those DMAs, the PQ is virtually identical for those stations. All FOX stations have absolutely identical DT PQ for network-fed content, because they are fed the exact same bit stream per time zone, and a virtually identical bit stream in adjacent time zones, and are not allowed to technically alter it in any way. The advantage of a digital delivery system is that there is no degradation or artifacting added as it passes through the signal chain. For FOX, at least, PQ in Denver is identical to PQ in Phoenix is identical to PQ in Atlanta, or anywhere else, for that matter.

I would not find a AVR that "thunks" when it switches audio modes to be very "satifying" at all.


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

Runch Machine said:


> I agree with Cheer. For best picture and highest reliability OTA is the only way to go. No matter how hard it rains or snows, I never lose my local channels which are received by my attic antenna.


I must disagree. I had many problems with OTA reliability with the hr10 (one of the main reasons I switched to cable). I now use the Sony DHG HDD500 with cablecard which has HD OTA like the hr10. When I compare the HD OTA PQ to the cable fed PQ I actually give a slight edge to the cable feed (believe it or not). It seems a little brighter / sharper although I'm not sure why. This is true for when I compare both channels on the sony as well as when I compare the Sony OTA to the cable HD local channel on the moto6412.

HD OTA is great if you do not have a decent cable\fios option but I cannot tell you how glad I am that I don't have to rely on HD OTA anymore. It is nice to have it though for those hd channels that comcast doesn't provide (increases my 19 HD channels to 23).


----------



## gregftlaud (Jun 16, 2004)

some areas bundle dtv as well. i live in south florida and bellsouth bundles dtv into their services, and not comcrap.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

gregftlaud said:


> some areas bundle dtv as well. i live in south florida and bellsouth bundles dtv into their services, and not comcrap.


Not really bundled in the traditional sense. Not to mention BellSouth is nearly certain to drop DTV at the expiration of the agreement, if not before then.

I for one really don't care if it is one provider or three. My only concern is quality and cost, in that order most of the time.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> I must disagree. I had many problems with OTA reliability with the hr10 (one of the main reasons I switched to cable). I now use the Sony DHG HDD500 with cablecard which has HD OTA like the hr10. When I compare the HD OTA PQ to the cable fed PQ I actually give a slight edge to the cable feed (believe it or not). It seems a little brighter / sharper although I'm not sure why. This is true for when I compare both channels on the sony as well as when I compare the Sony OTA to the cable HD local channel on the moto6412.


Being in Annapolis puts you at least 40-50 miles from the broadcast towers in Baltimore and DC so it's no wonder you got poor reception via OTA. I live in Ellicott City and get outstanding reception from both cities via my three HDTivos. Cable PQ deepnds entirely on the cableco you are with and the quality of the fiber optic backbone they installed to carry the digital signals.



> When did you last have your cableco hook up a digital box to your tv? I switched 6 months ago to comcast and in my area they converted all channels to digital. PQ is much better in SD and HD as compared to D* (some cable sd looks almost like hd and the hd is stunning!). This is only when viewing channels through the moto box and cablecard. The comcast analog feed that runs straight to the tv looks like it did 10 years ago (horrible).


DTV PQ vs. digital cable has been well documented and discussed so this is nothing new here. DTV is compressing the crap out of their signal so anything they're sending out in HD will look worse than most HD digital cable feeds. This is the main reason DTV is making the switch to mpeg4. It takes up far less bandwidth and won't be degraded like the current mpeg2 HD broadcasts.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> This is the main reason DTV is making the switch to mpeg4. It takes up far less bandwidth and won't be degraded like the current mpeg2 HD broadcasts.


That's by no means guaranteed. One hopes that DirecTV will act rationally and not degrade the mpeg4 channels in the future. But they may decide that 90% of America doesn't care about quality. So DirecTV will instead offer more shopping channels (which produce easily quantifiable incremental revenue to DirecTV) instead of higher quality (which has a far less direct impact on revenue).

And I'm serious about this. No, DirecTV probably won't have 1000 shopping channels. But they could wind up using the bandwidth some other way. Bandwidth is a "scarce resource". There will always be more demand for it than there is available. So DirecTV will *always* be reaching a point where they have to say *"enough is enough"* and not add more incremental channels.

The only question is, when does DirecTV reach that point? While *you're* still happy with the quality, or while *90%+ of their subscribers* are still happy with the quality? Depending on whether you're in the top 10% or bottom 90% you may or may not be happy in the future.

Whew. Long winded, wasn't I?


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> Being in Annapolis puts you at least 40-50 miles from the broadcast towers in Baltimore and DC so it's no wonder you got poor reception via OTA. I live in Ellicott City and get outstanding reception from both cities via my three HDTivos. Cable PQ deepnds entirely on the cableco you are with and the quality of the fiber optic backbone they installed to carry the digital signals.


I get great HD OTA reception too, until the winds blows or it rains/snows.

I was upset about the _reliability_ of recording HD OTA and only pointed out that I'm glad cable has solved what was a huge problem for me.


----------



## Mark W (Dec 6, 2001)

I think the reason is rather simple. For a long period of time, the Sat companies products and service, and value was simply superior to the cable companies. After years and years of seeing this, the cable companies finally realized that they had to improve. In most cases they have impoved their products, they have improved their services, where in some cases it is better than the Sat companies.

I also think that HD has become a big problem for the satellite companies. Too much effort, and too much up front cost. Two year commitment to try HD? Pay $$ up front for a lease? 

The cable company is so much easier. Call them up, they bring out the box, no $$ up front, no commitment. Easy to try, no dishes, no antennas, no line of sight, no boxes being obselete soon, and on and on...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Directv has been saying for some time now that they realize they have basically picked off all the low hanging fruit and thier gains would not be anywhere near historical. Their current stratagy is to pick and retain better subs and make more money from each sub they do have. Listen to their recent conference calls- that's their plan.

They have 2 choices to make more money per sub- give us features we want and are willing to pay for that we add to our packages. Or Jack prices. It's pretty obvious that since the Fox takeover the latter has been their M.O. 

Rupert talks a big game about adding new features we'll all want to pay for, but nothing shows. I think likely at this point a majority of their subs have at least once interactive capable box in their house. Yet aside from the mix channels and some other minor stuff there aint jack sprat to show for it.

The spaceway sats are amazing to me- there's an oppurtunity to do some amazing stuff. They could download all kinds of who knows what from those things. They cost millions (or is it billions?) Yet they dont even use them to anythign newar their capacitiy. It will likley be year end before they even fill the two of them half way. Essentially they have the most advanced communications satellites ever built and they are sitting on them not even mxing them out for HD LIL's. It's plain nutty...


----------



## TheBigDogs (Oct 14, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Rupert talks a big game about adding new features we'll all want to pay for, but nothing shows. I think likely at this point a majority of their subs have at least once interactive capable box in their house. Yet aside from the mix channels and some other minor stuff there aint jack sprat to show for it.


The "new features" that we'll pay for are ads imbedded in the channel guides, purchase options with national advertiser's commercials, and "forced viewing" where certain commercials can not be fast forwarded through or where you don't even have the choice to change the channel.

Each of these changes will bring substantial incremental revenue to D* and as a result, PQ will improve once the subscriber numbers take a downturn. Unfortunately, to quote Henry Mencken, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." and the majority of people will neither detect or care about a PQ reduction.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TheBigDogs said:


> The "new features" that we'll pay for are ads imbedded in the channel guides, purchase options with national advertiser's commercials, and "forced viewing" where certain commercials can not be fast forwarded through or where you don't even have the choice to change the channel.
> 
> Each of these changes will bring substantial incremental revenue to D* and as a result, PQ will improve once the subscriber numbers take a downturn. Unfortunately, to quote Henry Mencken, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." and the majority of people will neither detect or care about a PQ reduction.


those aren't features we'll all want to pay for. Those are all features advertisers will want to pay for.

In other words- they dont seem to be giving the subscriber any reason to voluntarily increase their monthly bill.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

actually in their defense I just thought of one active feature for the subs to pick that could make cash- the NFL superfan.


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

TyroneShoes said:


> I concur, but it's not just an opinion, it's a fact. Even if a secondary vendor gets a direct feed of the HD program directly from a network affiliate station, there is nothing that they can do to improve upon the PQ. Any damage from compression is already done, and about all that might happen after that would be a second round of compression by the secondary vendor, which can never result in an improvement.
> 
> And, virtually all DBS and cable systems get their HD feeds from DT stations OTA anyway, so reliability for the end user can only be worse than that of direct OTA.


Not quite true. They local affliates in most areas are subbanding the crap out of the DTV channels, they take the digital HD feed from the source and then compress it to fit in lower bit rate than what is original provided to them.

It is possible to feed the original digital HD source before recompressing it on to the local cable co's.

Also, C-band has been providing higher bit rate HD feeds for years.

Saying there's nothing better than OTA for HD isn't quite true, but for most markets is as good as the Locals are going to be.

That said, many Cable HD Channels tend to spank local HD broadcasts period. While the same HD Channels on D*, E*, ... just look like crap by comparison.

CCourtney


----------



## jbradway (Sep 30, 2001)

As they YMMV when it comes to local cable. Even within Comcast itself the quality varies widely. I had my local Comcast for a few months not long ago and their SD picture quality was awful. Just flat unwatchable. Whether it was analog or digital - didn't matter. Their HD was fine, but lacked a lot of channels I get on D*. So even if the Series 3 came out tomorrow, I'm still stuck with poor options.


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

fastep said:


> I must disagree. I had many problems with OTA reliability with the hr10 (one of the main reasons I switched to cable). I now use the Sony DHG HDD500 with cablecard which has HD OTA like the hr10. When I compare the HD OTA PQ to the cable fed PQ I actually give a slight edge to the cable feed (believe it or not). It seems a little brighter / sharper although I'm not sure why. This is true for when I compare both channels on the sony as well as when I compare the Sony OTA to the cable HD local channel on the moto6412.
> 
> HD OTA is great if you do not have a decent cable\fios option but I cannot tell you how glad I am that I don't have to rely on HD OTA anymore. It is nice to have it though for those hd channels that comcast doesn't provide (increases my 19 HD channels to 23).


That's strange you had so many problems with OTA. I've been lucky I guess as all my OTA channels perform perfectly, all the time even in the worst weather. The only thing I hate about them is our stupid local stations go back to SD in an HD program when there are weather alerts. My OTA is just as reliable as my Directv channels.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

CCourtney said:


> Not quite true. They local affliates in most areas are subbanding the crap out of the DTV channels, they take the digital HD feed from the source and then compress it to fit in lower bit rate than what is original provided to them.
> 
> It is possible to feed the original digital HD source before recompressing it on to the local cable co's.
> 
> ...


Actually, the only stations I've seen doing a lot of sub-channels are the "Christian" stations. You know, the ones that want all your money to support others great lifestyles...wait, I digress. And those all those sub-channels look like total crap. Good thing I can skip them entirely.

In our area, the cable HD channels look as good as OTA, but YMMV.

Without question, the worst HD and SD picture quality I've seen lately is indeed via DirecTV. Well, I don't see it any more since becoming a former customer for that very reason.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

The only good thing about sub-channels is local weather, and traffic if you are in a metro area. Other than that, the PBS sub-channels have something good on at least once a week -- or maybe once a month...

Then again, I fortunately don't need to worry about traffic and weather.com does a much better job than the local sub-channel feed that I do get from 60+ miles away.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

CCourtney said:


> Not quite true. They local affliates in most areas are subbanding the crap out of the DTV channels, they take the digital HD feed from the source and then compress it to fit in lower bit rate than what is original provided to them.
> 
> It is possible to feed the original digital HD source before recompressing it on to the local cable co's.
> 
> Also, C-band has been providing higher bit rate HD feeds for years...


Putting aside the fact that virtually no one has access to popular HD channels via C-band, and that 99% of HD programs that have any real viewers are not even available on C-band (and if so are from the station, not the network), you have completely overlooked one extremely important key factor here. Apparently you either did not take the time to read and comprehend what I posted, or I am just not a very scintillating poster.

It is quite true that a small fraction of stations further compress the signal they get from the network feeds. No one disputes that. But, that secondarily-compressed signal is the very same signal that is also the signal virtually all DBS and cable vendors are getting from the affiliates, and NOT the signal before secondary compression, which means the signal that is transmitted OTA is not compressed any further (by the station) than the signal received by the DBS or cable vendors, many of which also then further compress that before their subs ever see it.

On the contrary, it is either compressed more by secondary vendors, or the same, which means that as long as the laws of physics are still in effect, OTA PQ can not technically be surpassed by DBS or cable versions of those signals. In practice, cable will harm the PQ the least, if at all, while DBS, by virtue of the signal conditioning, downscaling, and chaining to MPEG-4, will harm it the most.

The secondary vendor is never allowed to take a pure network feed, which may or may not have a higher quality than the SMPTE310 signal from a terrestrial DT station (and in most cases does not), directly in lieu of a local affiliate's signal, because they would then not be carrying the locally inserted commercials, and we all know how incensed the NAB would be about that. So, that just doesn't ever happen.

That can only mean that whatever might further degrade the signal on DBS or cable beyond whatever degrades the OTA version, can only be worse than the OTA signal itself, and can't ever in any way be superior. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

Furthermore, you can't compare bit rates directly when other factors are not held equal, and they rarely are. Different transmission methods use a number of differing parameters, including symbol rate, FEC, payload rate, etc., because the power levels, frequencies, modulation methods, transport path distances, and even the medium itself (free space, open air terrestrial, or coaxial cable) can be quite different, which dictates different methods.

Not only that, but a typical 45 mb sat rate may include multiple streams that include an already-formatted SMPTE310 (19 mb) HD signal, plus other streams. FOX transmits at a 73 mb/s bit rate, but within that payload is the HD feed, the SD feed, and sometimes more than one of each, plus tons of null bits and ancillary elemental streams. The DT stream that is eventually parsed out for the DT exciter (which represents the HD video we see) may vary only between 9 and 12 mb/s several times a minute, so the fact that it is a part of a 73 mb original feed means virtually nothing regarding aggregate bit rate of the DT stream, or what PQ eventually reaches either OTA, DBS, or cable customers.

So, for those very reasons, any statement that OTA is never inferior to DBS or cable TV versions of that signal still stands as absolutely true.


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> I am just not a very scintillating poster.


I agree.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

DirecTV just annouced that subscriber churn for the recent quarter was lower than it was a year ago. Doesn't leave much hope for them going back to Tivo because the R15 is such a failure.


----------



## morgantown (Mar 29, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> DirecTV just annouced that subscriber churn for the recent quarter was lower than it was a year ago. Doesn't leave much hope for them going back to Tivo because the R15 is such a failure.


Should have more to do with the customer credit rating that was implemented (the lower churn). As far as DTV dropping the NDS-derived R15, or any future DVR built off of the NDS sister company -- pigs have a substantially higher probablility of flying.

Rupert is doing what is "best" for News Corp. as a whole, not for DTV as an individual entity. It stinks, but that sure seems like the way it is...


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

fastep said:


> I agree.


It takes one to know one. Thanks for the out-of-context quote, maybe I can return the favor some day. 

Sarcasm, like everything else, usually swooshes over pointed little heads. Sorry I wasted it.

In my case I had to actually point the possibility out, while in your case it was already glaringly obvious to everyone.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> DirecTV just annouced that subscriber churn for the recent quarter was lower than it was a year ago. Doesn't leave much hope for them going back to Tivo because the R15 is such a failure.


You really weren't seriously hoping that might happen, were you? Flying donkeys, maybe.

Churn is not really based on how happy folks are with the PVR they have, it is primarily based on how many folks are locked into contracts because you gave them free (albeit inferior) hardware, and how many are not. Churn rates and sub counts or growth are independently variable, you can have both good, both bad or one good and one bad.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

morgantown said:


> Rupert is doing what is "best" for News Corp. as a whole, not for DTV as an individual entity. It stinks, but that sure seems like the way it is...


Not seems like ... it IS that way. Chase said during today's webcast that DirecTV made a deliberate and calculated decision to not promote the DirecTV HD DVR with TiVo service, risking losing new customers to cable HD DVRs, because it was a decision that was best for DirecTV's and NewsCorp's long-term future plans. In other words, outside of maintenance, they are done with TiVo.


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> It takes one to know one. Thanks for the out-of-context quote, maybe I can return the favor some day.
> 
> Sarcasm, like everything else, usually swooshes over pointed little heads. Sorry I wasted it.
> 
> In my case I had to actually point the possibility out, while in your case it was already glaringly obvious to everyone.


I'm sorry but I didn't see it as sarcasm due to my pointed little head.

But really, tyrone, I like you and you are one of the most knowledgable posters on this forum, but some of your posts are simply too "advanced" for me.

I am a simple person that makes HDTV comments/decisions based on what my eyes see, not what technical engineers have calculated I should be seeing (even with overwhelming supporting documentation).

But there is always the possibility I am in need of glasses....

Seriously, don't mind me and keep the posts coming. I am only kidding around.


----------

