# DirecTV Death Spiral...???



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

First the compliment -- hats off to DirecTV for finally releasing the 6.3 software for the HR10. Even given the bugs and halted rollout, it was a nice gesture for the Tivo loyal customers. 

But it really is starting to appear that DirecTV is doomed, and will be limited to two niches: 1) Rural Customers who don't have access to cable and (2) NFL fans who want Sunday Ticket. Outside of these markets, it seems that DirecTV is destined to fail. What little HD content DirecTV provides is already straining DirecTV's resources to the point that it can't provide consistent service (ie. turn off one channel to accomodate a HD broadcase on another channel) or deep HD channel choices. The proposed solution is to launch another satellite or two, recompress under MPEG4, and swap out all recievers at great expense. 

This works for a while, but as HD content increases, soon this system becomes strained and more satellites have to be launched (at great expense). As a necessary consequence of the added satellites, the Dish's become huge and the original advantage that DirecTV had (a small unobtrusive dish) is gone. Then, to pay for all the equipment swaps and Sat launches, DirecTV has to raise prices - and the other selling point (cheaper than cable) is gone.

So how does DirecTV overcome these technological limitations and appeal to the masses instead of the niches? 

Now I don't expect DirecTV to fail tommorow or next year, but there seems to be serious limitations inherrant to the technology that makes it very expensive and very inefficient for the HD future. What advent in technology am I missing that will secure DirecTV's future?


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

maybe the fact that cable keeps raising their prices as well.............. 15Mil + customers and making a profit helps too
other compression that lessens the bandwidth needed. software upgradable boxes so they dont have to be swapped? there are cycles and things cant been clearly seen just part of business. 

secure their future is tough in any market beyond a few years. like oil is a finite source but exxon will be around for awhile.


----------



## lostman72 (Jul 12, 2003)

You need to keep in mind that only about 10% ( info found on the form) of DTV cust. have HD. 

Maybe 25% of DTV cust. would like to have HD but don't know were to start. I still see a lot of dishes around that only pick up the 101 sat. Cable TV is getting to the point were they are also strained. (with Voip, VOD,High speed internet and analog channels) They also they have a small % that have HD. 

Both cable Tv and Dish co. support several formats of boxes. From DVR's to digital CATV boxes to analog boxes that are still out there. 

DTV is half way smarter making most people pay half or full price of the equipment. Cable TV makes you pay a lease fee every month. Unless you go with cable card. 

You read here about people getting things for free. How about all the people that had to pay full price. I am sure they are not going in were fast and I am sure they are making money.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Well, 100% of terrestrial programming will be DT only 28 short months from now, so HD will definitely be hugely on every single viewer's radar by then.

The appeal of DBS over cable for those in locations served by both vendors was historically that DBS had better PQ. I'm sure that was what drove me there in the first place. But that was in the last millenium, before ubiquitous fiber trunking, QAM modulation, and LIL with must-carry. The first two raised cable's PQ level to match that of DBS, and the last one lowered DBS's PQ well below that of cable. Cable is currently at a huge technological advantage over DBS, and HD just hammers that home by stretching DBS's comparitively meager resources.

When analog shuts off, where will those 20% terrestrial viewers go? Probably to cable, if things don't change, which along with the growing hunger for HD and VOD, is why the pressure to go Ka/MPEG4 now is so great.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

And then there's IPTV, which isn't much of a player now but IMO will be something of a juggernaut before too long.


----------



## itsmeitsmeitsme (Nov 13, 2003)

I know a few more in my area that might now go from cable to DTV. During the Notre Dame and Michigan game, TW cable went out in the area for over an hour and many people are really upset.


----------



## Seminole (Oct 27, 2003)

Soon as FIOS is available that will be it for D* this last upgrade has really messed up my Tivo I am tired of all this crap not top mention the 2 year contracts if you upgrade to Mpeg 4 and the hassel of another instalation. ST and TIVO have been their hook into me but with Tivo going and ST getting to expensive and watered down it just isn't worth it to me anymore.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

I may consider U-Verse when it arrives (as I live in U-Verse territory, not FIOS territory)...but something significant would have to happen to make me go back to cable. I don't miss the significantly higher bill, and I don't miss the outages. When I lose my D* picture, it's typically for a brief time (at worst, the duration of the heaviest part of a storm). When cable used to go out, it was often hours (or, in a few instances, a couple of days). Not acceptable.


----------



## Dmtalon (Dec 28, 2003)

I'm not going to pretend to know how D* is going to compete in the future, but I do know this.

About two years ago I switched from Insight Cable to Directv. I switched for 2 reasons. 

1) Price: My bill went from $63.xx/mo to $47/mo
2) PQ, I had/have an SA2 Tivo and channels 2-71 on 'digital' cable were still broadcast in analog, making Tivo recordings on those channels look aweful unless recorded at best quality.

Fast Forward to today:

My current Directv Bill is $67.94/mo. Now you'll see looking at my signature that I have an HR10 which I'm paying $5.99/mo for and the HD channels that I pay $9.99/mo for. But I have also dropped DTV "plus" and dropped my third receiver.

So Originally:

DTV Plus w/3 receivers $47.xx/mo
DTV w/2 receivers, one being the HR10 and HD $67/mo

So, Looking at costs, the dvr service and dropping a receiver cancel each other out, so my bill should be $58/mo however since joining DTV my bill has gone up 10/mo. That's a pretty large increase for a company that marketed how the cable companies always raised their rates.

The value of DirecTV is certainly going away, and once my TIVO branded DVR is no longer usable I will likely be considering my options closely.


----------



## jamieh1 (Mar 5, 2003)

Cable has raised prices alot over the years, I have Directv and would not have cable, but Directv has had huge increases over the last few years,
just a few years ago, there TC package was in the $32-34 range, now prices have jumped into the $45 range. If prices keep going up $2-3 a year we want be able to afford it, then when you add in $5 per recvr, $6 for DVR and $10 for HD we will have a car payment.

I remember when you got all of DTVs channels for $29.99 and then USSB all movies for $34.95 a month.

Thats $64.94 now you pay $99 thats a huge increase.

I bet in Jan-March directv will raise rates another $3


----------



## Vroomfondel (Jul 10, 2006)

When comparing prices, remember that local channels are now included, whereas they were typically an extra $5 before. That's not to say that I don't agree that prices have gone up.

However, I'm one of the "technology freaks" that lives in a rural area, so the chances of me seeing any of the good stuff from a local cable operation are about as high as the Raiders winning the Super Bowl!

I have two HD TVs, a 53" projection in the living room and a 32" LCD in the bedroom, and the ONLY way I can feed them is with D*. My hands are tied as my local cableco probably thinks that HD stands for Harley Davidson and barely offers a half-decent digital STB and internet service. Only some of the locals are even stereo and all of the extended basic channels are still mono, although most of the digital channels are, in fact, stereo, but no sign of HD. Heck, even HBO & Showtime are mono unless you pay them through the nose for digital!!! Oh, and you can forget ANY kind of DVR.

For the above reasoning, I have come to the conclusion that I am stuck with D*. I just hope that the new (non-TiVo) HD DVR will at least allow me to keep up with the pack. The HR10 will go in the bedroom, the Philips DSR704 in the office and the R15 gets retired (it doesn't get used much anyway).


----------



## slydog75 (Jul 8, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Well, 100% of terrestrial programming will be DT only 28 short months from now, so HD will definitely be hugely on every single viewer's radar by then.
> 
> When analog shuts off, where will those 20% terrestrial viewers go? Probably to cable, if things don't change, which along with the growing hunger for HD and VOD, is why the pressure to go Ka/MPEG4 now is so great.


I'd guess a large percentage of that 20% still using analog terrestrial broadcasts are in areas not serviced by cable companies, so they're probably going to go to Satellite or they'll just get a digital -> analog converter and continue using terrestrial.


----------



## Dmtalon (Dec 28, 2003)

slydog75 said:


> I'd guess a large percentage of that 20% still using analog terrestrial broadcasts are in areas not serviced by cable companies, so they're probably going to go to Satellite or they'll just get a digital -> analog converter and continue using terrestrial.


I donno... Someone that is only living with Free channels is probably not likely going to go from that to spending $45/mo for TV. By that time you'll be able to pick up a Digital receiver for CHEAP at walmart, and that is likely what they'll do. Of course this is just my opinion.


----------



## smimi10 (May 11, 2006)

Vroomfondel said:


> ... probably thinks that HD stands for Harley Davidson


Finally...someone else who "gets it". 

Mike


----------



## vtfan99 (May 19, 2006)

When my cable company's (Cox) prices come into line with D*...and their offerings match (or exceed) what D* offers, then I might consider switching. Right now, Cox doesn't offer ESPN2 HD...which is an essential channel for me. Not to mention that a similar offering from Cox would cost about $10-15/month more. What I don't understand is why Cox is not taking advantage of the situation. They could easily increase their offering and knock a few bucks off the price....and I'd be gone in a minute...they just can't seem to get their heads out of their arses.


----------



## smimi10 (May 11, 2006)

It's likely going to be FIOS for me when it finally makes its way to my neighborhood. It's about three blocks away now.

I've been with D* now for quite a while (6 or so years) but it's not like I'm married to it. 

Mike


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

vtfan99 said:


> What I don't understand is why Cox is not taking advantage of the situation. They could easily increase their offering and knock a few bucks off the price....and I'd be gone in a minute...they just can't seem to get their heads out of their arses.


Cablecos don't know how to do this. They're still used to being monopolies, and it shows. At best, they manage to offer discounts for six or twelve months.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Seminole said:


> Soon as FIOS is available that will be it for D* this last upgrade has really messed up my Tivo I am tired of all this crap not top mention the 2 year contracts if you upgrade to Mpeg 4 and the hassel of another instalation. ST and TIVO have been their hook into me but with Tivo going and ST getting to expensive and watered down it just isn't worth it to me anymore.


FIOS penetration is a LONG way away to make major dents in Cable-Co and DBS subscriber base.

I am in a major suburb of Chicago.... and there isn't even a HINT of FIOS comming anytime soon.... So I am probably at least looking at 5+ years before FIOS is even a consideration..


----------



## Seminole (Oct 27, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> FIOS penetration is a LONG way away to make major dents in Cable-Co and DBS subscriber base.
> 
> I am in a major suburb of Chicago.... and there isn't even a HINT of FIOS comming anytime soon.... So I am probably at least looking at 5+ years before FIOS is even a consideration..


I was told the first of the year in my area and I can't wait


----------



## Brillian1080p (Apr 10, 2006)

Guys I've been hearing this fiber will replace everything copper since 1981. Yes massive amounts have been placed into service since then. It hasn't happened yet and probably won't for a long time.

When I first started splicing it in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1981. The only company that could afford it was AT&T. The cable itself, the transmission and receiving equipment was very expensive. Quality and price have come down a lot since then. Cable companies have been pouring money into replacing aging plant with fiber for many years. It's almost as if they can't keep up with demand.

I would not predict the demise of copper or satellite anytime soon.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have fiber to the home. My problem is I don't want to live in the high density areas that make it profitable to provide the fiber.


----------



## snooplives (Jan 17, 2004)

For anyone to think Directv is spiraling downward is, with all due respect, out of their mind. Directv, while not growing at the rates it has in the past, is still growing. Most people who have Directv do not inhabit these forums. Most people who have D* love it. They don't get pissed off about poor PQ because they don't know about it. They don't care about bandwith or the 6.3 update. I don't think they will like the new DVR interface when they are forced to switch from Tivo, but compared to CV in my area, the new interface is still better.

I consider myself an average person when it comes to my technical knowledge. Compared to the folks who inhabit this forum, I'm below average. But compared to my friends and family who don't visit here, I'm above average. I looked at this forum everyday to see what was going on with 6.3. I finally got it, and ya know what? It really didn't have enough of an affect on my life or my wife's life to warrant visiting this forum twice a day! Sure my tivo is faster and folders, but my wife who loves tivo, said "big f-ing deal" after it finally hit our tivo.

Getting back to my point, Directv will be around for a long, long time. They will probably buy Echostar, or some new technology down the road will buy them. Sure the Customer Service is inconsistent, the installers generally suck, and the prices are always going up. But when was the last time your cable company lowered their fees? Does your cable co (with the exception of comcast) offer the tivo interface? Are all the cable co installers happy and chipper and willing to climb in dirty crawl spaces to hide coax? Put things in perspective people. It's only Folders! The guide isn't that much faster. HMO and native would have been great, but it's just not happening. When I finally got the 6.3 update, I realized that it's not that important. I don't think the average D* customer is going to drop D* because there is no native passthrough update on 6.3 to the HDTivo.

With that said, I'll still visit this forum twice daily to read people's complaints about everything Directv does.


----------



## Markman07 (Jul 18, 2001)

"but my wife who loves tivo, said "big f-ing deal" after it finally hit our tivo." 

That is reason alone to file for Divorce!


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> Well, 100% of terrestrial programming will be DT only 28 short months from now, so HD will definitely be hugely on every single viewer's radar by then.


One caveat here. Just because all TV stations will be DT, doesn't mean they will be HD. In my case, MyNetwork (formally UPN) is on a subchannel for Fox, and in January, The CW (formally cable only WB) will be available on a subchannel of CBS.

And another note about the OP's niches for DirecTV. There is a third one. Lousy cable. I see many dishes on downtown houses.


----------



## snooplives (Jan 17, 2004)

Markman07 said:


> "but my wife who loves tivo, said "big f-ing deal" after it finally hit our tivo."
> 
> That is reason alone to file for Divorce!


That's a good one!


----------



## jcricket (Sep 11, 2002)

How can we get to like 20 posts and not mention D* has launched at least two satellites, and is launching one or two more that will utilize MPEG4 to provide capacity for the HD locals + 150 HD National channels. Judging by the posts in the other forum (dbstalk), D* will have rolled out HD-LILs for around the top 24 markets. I suspect 2007 will have another 10-12 markets, fill in the channels not available (CW, some other affiliates here and there) for the other 24 markets, and they'll start adding MPEG-4 HD channels as they become available.

Seems like D* is pretty aware that they risk falling behind cable and are working aggressively to catch up. I do agree there is less of a difference between D* and Cable these days, so I look forward  to D* doing something as a differentiator. For a while it was Tivo, maybe next it will be something better than Tivo (like the "Home Media Center" they mentioned in their annual sales report). D* will have to get rid of any up-front costs to compete, that's what I predict we will see by 2007 for all but the highest end equipment they offer (i.e. your SD DVRs, SD/HD non-DVRs and a basic HD DVR, will all be free with contracts).

And cable has plenty of pricey $$$ infrastructure upgrades in order to stay relevant too. DOCSIS 3.0 anyone? Do you think all those HD DVRs they give away are free? What about their head-end equipment for recieving and re-transmitting all that HD content. 

I'd say the playing field is basically level, all things considered, between cable, FIOS, D* and E* - It remains to be seen which one will end up taking the lion's share of customers TV/internet dollars. Maybe we'll all be thrown for a loop when something like Clearwire's WiMax offers a triple-play with lower infrastructure costs.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

jcricket said:


> How can we get to like 20 posts and not mention D* has launched at least two satellites, and is launching one or two more that will utilize MPEG4 to provide capacity for the HD locals + 150 HD National channels. Judging by the posts in the other forum (dbstalk), D* will have rolled out HD-LILs for around the top 24 markets. I suspect 2007 will have another 10-12 markets, fill in the channels not available (CW, some other affiliates here and there) for the other 24 markets, and they'll start adding MPEG-4 HD channels as they become available.


Because talking about the facts on what they are DOING to get to the point we all want them at.... isn't as fun as beating them up because we wanted it yesterday...

It's all about what they SHOULD have done, and no discussion on what they are doing to fix the situations.


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

I've been a satellite subscriber since 1996. I started out with Dish and migrated to DTV in 1998. However, I can't wait to leave DTV. I've grown to hate them. However, I can't just pull up anchor and leave as I hate Dish and Cable even more. 

I went satellite to leave behind cable and all its evils such as bad PQ, dealing with installers, and high prices. Sadly, both Dish and DTV are turning into the cable co. DTV has bad PQ, forces you to deal with installers, and now have high prices. Additionally, DTV forces you to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege of leasing equipment. To that I say, .... well, I can't say that but it involves a horse and them riding away on it.  

For now, I"m tied to DTV because of HDTV and my HR10-250 with REAL Tivo. I paid $1000 for it and will use it till it dies or Cable can offer me a better value. The way DTV is going, Cable is getting very close. 

Where cable is better:
1) No insane expenses to "lease" hardware. Pay a monthly and give it back when done. 
2) Generally, PQ is better. This clearly varies but generally is a plus. 
3) The Tivo S3 allows a REAL Tivo experience with cable. Once MRV is available, it could well be "Buh By DTV". 

Where MY cable CO is worse:
1) Pitififul HDTV offering

Since HDTV is important to me, I have to wait until my H10 dies or the Cable co offers more. In any event, DTV must win me back with things I really want. The (Sorry Earl) HR20-700 is not it. They should quit forcing that steaming poo on us and keep Tivo as an option. 

I'll stay with DTV or go elsewhere depending upon available services. Sadly, my options are very limited at this time.


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Because talking about the facts on what they are DOING to get to the point we all want them at.... isn't as fun as beating them up because we wanted it yesterday...
> 
> It's all about what they SHOULD have done, and no discussion on what they are doing to fix the situations.


Earl,

Actually, DirecTV is done doing what it should do. Murdoch believes and correctly so that DirecTV is a "Turd Bird". The problem with DirecTV and all satellite services is one-way limited bandwidth capability. The FCC airwaves auction was DirecTVs last hope to compete in the content delivery service.

The OP is correct, we are watching the failure of what was once a great concept, and even "News Corporation" and Murdoch know that DirecTV is the "Turd Bird". I posted a link to an article in the New York Times that basically recapped what I have been waving my arms about for the last two years. And now that "Wireless DBS" has failed to acquire any licenses in the FCC auction last month and Murdoch has annouced that DirecTV has become the "Turd Bird", IMHO it is safe to say that we are connected to a slowly dying enity.

Read the New York Times article for a very small recap of the problems that both DirecTV and Echostar will be facing in the future.

The end will not come quickly, the failure of the one-way limited bandwidth satellite entertainment business should take almost a decade.

Of course, there are things they could do to limit and slow the death ("Wireless DBS"), but ultimately bandwidth (FTTH, FTTP) and two-way communications will win the battle and the war. 

Additional Thought:

For additional information, review the content of the press conference last week with the New Corporation CEO about the future of content delivery via the Internet, which leaves satellite delivery out of the picture.


----------



## rmassey (Sep 5, 2002)

I am seriously looking at going strictly OTA HD in the future. My town has finally offered the four nets in HD, although with considerable growing pains. 

I tire of the increasing prices, long contracts, little content from D*. I am considering either an S3 or a HTPC. The S3 brings along a $20/mo sub fee, whereas the HTPC would be free/mo, but lack the Tivo sw. I am hoping the S3 price comes down to sub $500 by this time next year, bugs are worked out and a deal is offered. I find that most of my viewing is towards Network HD programs so I can do without 30 HD E* or 7 HD D* channels.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

tbeckner said:


> Earl,
> 
> Actually, DirecTV is done doing what it should do. Murdoch believes and correctly so that DirecTV is a "Turd Bird". The problem with DirecTV and all satellite services is one-way limited bandwidth capability. The FCC airwaves auction was DirecTVs last hope to compete in the content delivery service.
> 
> ...


Well yes...... does DBS need to adjust and change to something... sure..

Maybe DirecTV should evolve into a Content Distributor via multiple methods... IIRC weren't they in discussion to carry their content via FIOS?

So sure..... if they don't change... 10 years from now they may not be here.
But the same could be said for Cable-Co's, or any other of the providers....

10 years is nearly two lifetimes in the tech world.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rmassey said:


> I am seriously looking at going strictly OTA HD in the future. My town has finally offered the four nets in HD, although with considerable growing pains.
> 
> I tire of the increasing prices, long contracts, little content from D*. I am considering either an S3 or a HTPC. The S3 brings along a $20/mo sub fee, whereas the HTPC would be free/mo, but lack the Tivo sw. I am hoping the S3 price comes down to sub $500 by this time next year, bugs are worked out and a deal is offered. I find that most of my viewing is towards Network HD programs so I can do without 30 HD E* or 7 HD D* channels.


If all the program you want is available via by OTA... then you are all set..
However, a LOT of popular programming is not available via OTA (especially first runs at least)....


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Well yes...... does DBS need to adjust and change to something... sure..
> 
> Maybe DirecTV should evolve into a Content Distributor via multiple methods... IIRC weren't they in discussion to carry their content via FIOS?


Murdoch started to purchase wired bandwidth, but found out that it was far too expensive, and notice there have been no additional purchases since Spring. Without wired or wireless two-way communications there is no future for DBS in the US. But ultimately it comes down to what the people who are running the company think, and currently Murdoch and the News Corportation President and COO "Peter Chernin" DO NOT BELIEVE that DirecTV can provide them with the capability to deliver the CONTENT. There is no doubt that Murdoch within two weeks of the failed wireless auction ("Wireless DBS") was already calling DirecTV the "Turd Bird" in Public! And the News Corporation COO was talking about the Internet and only Internet for content delivery in just the last two weeks, when they announced a joint venture with VeriSign (aka Jamba) for content delivery. Additionally, to allow BSkyB to compete, they anounced FREE BROADBAND for BSkyB customers this summer.

Of course, you can add in the fact that the head of the FCC has already stated in public that he would NOT APPROVE a MERGER of DirecTV and Echostar ("Dish Network"). And then add in the discussions for a stock swap with Liberty Media Corporation and one can see the HAND WRITTING on the WALL.

There may never be enough bandwidth available to make DBS competitive, and then add in the "TRIPLE PLAY" that the cable and Telco companies are currently using to capture new customers and the advantage those companies have in delivering HD. And when you put everything together, it creates a NOT SO VERY PRETTY PICTURE for DBS.



ebonovic said:


> So sure..... if they don't change... 10 years from now they may not be here.
> But the same could be said for Cable-Co's, or any other of the providers....


But Earl, cable companies DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE, the advantage of two-way communications is automatically built-in. And with the addition of fiber (FTTH or FTTP), they have almost unlimited bandwidth that the satellite business can never match, with 1-10 terabit fiber and beyond.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

tbeckner said:


> But Earl, cable companies DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE, the advantage of two-way communications is automatically built-in. And with the addition of fiber (FTTH or FTTP), they have almost unlimited bandwidth that the satellite business can never match, with 1-10 terabit fiber and beyond.


The only problem is... they will have to upgrade their "cable" again...
My subdivision was just built (still under development in one section).

They didn't run FIBER.. they only ran coax (not sure what grade though).
We know at least the RG-6 running to the house has it's limitations... and it works off the common bandwith model (what I mean by that is... if you are a bandwith hog (which I am  ), your neighboors are effected).

Two way communication is very important.... with the future technology... 
And the DBS transmission one-way transmission method is dated.. (but then again, those sats don't last for ever anyway).

DirecTV may be able to convert to USE those fiber's and other transmission methods... If they are built and regulated properly (the later part is what I am worried about).....

But even in a brand new, fairly expensive subdivision.... we are not even "future" ready... and at least my city will fight it, as the next city over has been "upgrading" to the updated coax cables for 3 years now....

So yes, I agree that DBS technology is not going to be around "much" longer... but the next generation... fiber to my door.... I hope it is here before my son goes to college (he just started Kindergarden this week)


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> FIOS penetration is a LONG way away to make major dents in Cable-Co and DBS subscriber base.
> 
> I am in a major suburb of Chicago.... and there isn't even a HINT of FIOS comming anytime soon.... So I am probably at least looking at 5+ years before FIOS is even a consideration..


You won't get FIOS, Earl -- we're not in a Verizon territory. You'll get U-Verse.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

tbeckner said:


> But Earl, cable companies DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE, the advantage of two-way communications is automatically built-in. And with the addition of fiber (FTTH or FTTP), they have almost unlimited bandwidth that the satellite business can never match, with 1-10 terabit fiber and beyond.


And let's not forget the telcos (at least the two healthy ones) who are spending a king's ransom each to deploy massive fiber networks.

That is, when they're not obstructed by narrow-minded, self-serving municipal governments who are mostly concerned about reaching into corporate pockets.

Cablecos will have a hard time keeping up with the telcos because of their overwhelming debt structure -- something the telcos aren't saddled with.

Ultimately, the problem with DBS is that it's not "scalable." Bandwidth increases require launching birds...plus, DBS is, as others have pointed out, a one-way medium for the most part (and this won't be fixed anytime soon) and a medium with a serious latency problem (and this won't ever be fixed).


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

The one thing nobody talks about here though is what if a better compression technology comes along, which it most certainly will. Back when Directv and Dish first started out the best compression technology out, at least that I know of was MPEG2. Now of course MPEG4 has come along--and not a minute too soon for the sat. companies--and they're able to double their channels.

Who knows what will come out in the next 5 years that makes MPEG4 look pathetic. I'd really hate to see Directv and Dish go, because then the cable cos. will have a field day on prices again.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

kbohip said:


> The one thing nobody talks about here though is what if a better compression technology comes along, which it most certainly will. Back when Directv and Dish first started out the best compression technology out, at least that I know of was MPEG2. Now of course MPEG4 has come along--and not a minute too soon for the sat. companies--and they're able to double their channels.


But so are cablecos and telcos. Doesn't change the underlying technological issue.


> Who knows what will come out in the next 5 years that makes MPEG4 look pathetic. I'd really hate to see Directv and Dish go, because then the cable cos. will have a field day on prices again.


What makes you say that?


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

Dish and direct tv are going no where there are millions and millions of people with out access to cable. Sure there might be better compression out there in the future but if what direct tv says is true the new sats will give them 150 national channels with mpeg 4. It is going to be a long time before there are a 150 worth while cable channels in HD.


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

cheer said:


> What makes you say that?


What makes me say that if Directv and Dish weren't around cable cos. would raise their rates? Oh I don't know...common sense.

As vikingguy points out, most rural customers don't have any other option other than satellite. The current trend in this country right now is that a lot of the baby boomers are moving into rural areas instead of staying in the cities. If this continues I could see that helping the sat. companies out quite a bit.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

vikingguy said:


> Dish and direct tv are going no where there are millions and millions of people with out access to cable. Sure there might be better compression out there in the future but if what direct tv says is true the new sats will give them 150 national channels with mpeg 4. It is going to be a long time before there are a 150 worth while cable channels in HD.


Well, the problem here is that they are wasting these extra channels by having to carry local feeds for each local market -- so instead of broadcasting the 4 major networks to all cities, they have to broadcast the 4 networks times the number of cities they want to serve. If they serve 50 cities, that is 200 HD channels. This will quickly eat up those extra 150 HD channels. The FCC is the other player that is killing DirecTV.

On another note, is a-la-carte pricing in the future for DirecTV? It sure would be nice to be able to be free of base package pricing, and this would distinguicsh DirecTV from cable and perhaps be a selling point for DBS. This is an area where they could take the lead and have a selling point over cable.

BTW: I thought of one other niche market (3) RV's and other mobile TV applications.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The extra 150 HD channels are national channels. The local HD channels are on spot beams, so they only cover a relatively small area.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

DirecTV was great. They offered a big technological advantage over cable, specifically 100% digital programming, years ahead of cable.

Perhaps more importantly, they provided an alternative to everyone who hated the cable monopolies.

However they've done pretty much nothing since. Launching new sats that require everyone to upgrade to see them, and at significant cost, is at best a "hump", and at worst fatal. And there's basically no new content up there, just more locals - that's great and all, but that alone won't attract or retain customers - they have to expand their HD line up.

And the cable companies have caught up and surpassed DirecTV, offering 100% digital, near-free DVR's, VOD, more HD, etc.. And while they still have a lot of the monopoly personality, they've learned a little about competition.

And now we have FiOS. Claim what you want about it being "years away", but it's happening, and happening fast. And if the national franchise bill passes, it will be even faster.

And a large swell of people now hate DirecTV due to their repeated fumbles and screwing existing customers, and are looking for alternatives - FiOS is a real option for many, and is rapidly increasing it's footprint (even if Earl can't get it).

I'm a high-end customer. I hate the cable company. But DirecTV has screwed things up so badly, and still doesn't offer enough HD, that I will likely be a cable subscriber by the end of the month, and a FiOS TV subscriber after that (looks like Q1 next year).

And the Series 3 (and the faux 6.3 rollout, and the crappy HR20) is the impetus many of us needed to push us over the edge.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> And the cable companies have caught up and surpassed DirecTV, offering 100% digital, near-free DVR's, VOD, more HD, etc.. And while they still have a lot of the monopoly personality, they've learned a little about competition.


Not all of them, unfortunately. My cable company still has over 70 analog channels, and only new channels are being added to the digital tier.

And Cablevision's VOD totally SUCKS! VOD "trick-play" is controlled remotely, not locally, and the response times are horrendous. I tried it ONCE, about a month ago, and that was enough. It's horrendous.

I'm sure other cable companies are better, but DirecTV still blows Cablevision away in terms of picture quality, which is my most important criteria.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

kbohip said:


> What makes me say that if Directv and Dish weren't around cable cos. would raise their rates? Oh I don't know...common sense.


Oh, OK. I thought you had some actual reasoning or something.

Cablecos will be getting significant competition from telcos and other outlets. Their days of absolute monopoly are over, satellite or no.


> As vikingguy points out, most rural customers don't have any other option other than satellite. The current trend in this country right now is that a lot of the baby boomers are moving into rural areas instead of staying in the cities. If this continues I could see that helping the sat. companies out quite a bit.


Which has nothing to do with cable pricing, right?


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> The only problem is... they will have to upgrade their "cable" again...
> My subdivision was just built (still under development in one section).
> 
> They didn't run FIBER.. they only ran coax (not sure what grade though).
> ...


But then again Earl, you are talking only about your situation.

I live in a town of about 75,000 (one of the fastest growing in the US in the last two years), and I have had FIBER TO THE CURB (FTTC) since 2000, and cable based broadband Internet since 1998.

Agreed my local cable company (bendbroadband.com) hasn't expanded the fiber from the curb to the house, but they do offer fiber for small businesses, and I really don't expect them to offer FTTH for at least the next three years.

BTW, I wouldn't recommend cable TV (even our great little cable company) to anyone, but then that is my bias.

I don't plan on leaving DirecTV until I switch to HDTV sometime in late 2008 or early 2009, or earlier if HDTV finally become a feasible commodity (the technical problems between HD components are worked out, the hardware becomes reasonability priced, and more content becomes available). I really hate having to leave DirecTV, but then again, they have fallen behind and without a huge investment, over the next few years, they will very likely fall even further behind. None of us know the true outcome of future events, but with IPTV and content delivery via the Internet, and possible fiber deployments, the future of other technologies looks brighter that the future of one-way commuincations and the lower bandwidth of DBS.

DirecTV is *NOT GOING TO DIE TOMORROW*, but without two-way communications capability and greatly expanded bandwidth, DirecTV and Dish Network are doomed over the long run to become minor niche players in the content delivery business. It could take more than a decade, but then again who knows.

And currently, with Murdoch controlling DirecTV and believing that DirecTV is a Turd Bird, I highly doubt that Murdoch and News Corp are going to invest in DirecTV, except to offload it unto someone else, which leaves us somewhat Orphaned.

This current situation is very sad, because when I bought into DirecTV in 1994, they had better picture quality, they offered more channels, and they had features like PPV, which the local cable company could not match.

Now DirecTV doesnt have better picture quality (in fact it is worst at times), doesnt offer more channels (watched channels and the local cable has more HD channels), and local cable now all of the features and even more, like PPV and VOD (Video On Demand), and even a lower price for basic service. And of course they offer a lower cost bundled services (aka Triple Play), broadband Internet, VoIP, and TV.



ebonovic said:


> he just started Kindergarden this week


Congratulations, that is great!

If he just started Kindergarden, then he is likely five years old, so they have more than a decade to lay the fiber, and he should be in the class of 2019. 

Additional Thoughts:

Since you said, _"what I mean by that is... if you are a bandwith hog (which I am  ), your neighboors are effected_".

I still laugh everytime I think about what the Cisco CEO said in 1998, that DSL would bury cable very soon, now eight years later, DSL is just now neck and neck in the number of customers, and in most cases really hasn't lived up to its hype.

IMHO, using my 34 years of IT experience, my own personal experience, and the experience of some of my customers, I have never found a DSL connection that has been as reliable or offered the bandwidth for even close to the same price as my cable based broadband connection. I know that the Telcos said for many years in their ads, until they where ordered by the FTC to stop, that DSL didn't have the same bandwidth problems that cable did, but of course we all know that it was a lie.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

tbeckner said:


> But then again Earl, you are talking only about your situation.


Sure the very finite details in my example are "my" situation...
But the overlaying basis, is very similar for the several million people in the greater Chicago area...

I know AT&T has started to "gently" advertise... most people don't even know it is them behind they new "TV service" ads.... but In the City and the Collar counties.... there have been ZERO / NADA indications that the foundation work for Fiber has started....

A significant portion of ChicagoLand can't get broadband of any type right now (DSL or Cable)

But alas... hopefuly in 15 years, something changes...


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

drew2k said:


> Not all of them, unfortunately. My cable company still has over 70 analog channels, and only new channels are being added to the digital tier.
> 
> And Cablevision's VOD totally SUCKS! VOD "trick-play" is controlled remotely, not locally, and the response times are horrendous. I tried it ONCE, about a month ago, and that was enough. It's horrendous.
> 
> I'm sure other cable companies are better, but DirecTV still blows Cablevision away in terms of picture quality, which is my most important criteria.


The only thing that keeps cable from totally blowing DirecTV and Dish out of the water is the differences between local cable companies.

I live in a town of about 75,000 (one of the fastest growing towns in the US over the last five years), and the cable company here is and has been one of the best in the nation and has always been locally owned.

They were the second Road Runner broadband cable franchise in the nation in the late 1990's, but now their Internet access is private, not a franchise. We have had FTTC (fiber to the curb) since 2000, and all of our channels are offered digitally and have been offered digitially for almost two years now, in fact they add channels to the digital feed and are no longer expanding the analog feed.

The picture quality is better than DirecTV at the SD level and far better at the HD level (not HD Lite), and the cable is very reliable. They also started offering a Triple Play with TV, Internet, and VoIP (starting this year). I haven't tried their VoIP service, because I have been using Vonage for the last two years, so I can't speak about its quality, but the Internet broadband service I have had since 1998 has been great.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Sure the very finite details in my example are "my" situation...
> But the overlaying basis, is very similar for the several million people in the greater Chicago area...
> 
> I know AT&T has started to "gently" advertise... most people don't even know it is them behind they new "TV service" ads.... but In the City and the Collar counties.... there have been ZERO / NADA indications that the foundation work for Fiber has started....
> ...


And by that same logic the reverse situation is very similar to 10's of millions of people not in your area. It sounds to me like you're the exception, not the rule.

DirecTV will not go away. However it will become a niche player, for only those people that can't get an alternative, and likely for some other reason not yet apparent (I'm sure they have plans, like making their DVR's support MySpace or something really "smart").

Fiber to the home will become the dominant player in many (large) markets within 10 years, secondded by cable cos. And if cable can figure some way to increase bandwidth without making all their current equipment (and TV's) obsolete, they could remain dominant for a long time. Satellite will be a distant third (in type of delivery, not MSO ranking).

And TV over IP has yet to really make a mark. Cable and Fiber are poised to deliver that (and Tivo is poised to be a great client device). Satellite has no play in this space, again making it more of a niche player.

No matter how you slice it, DirecTV is going in one direction only - shrinking and niche player.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

AbMagFab said:


> And by that same logic the reverse situation is very similar to 10's of millions of people not in your area. It sounds to me like you're the exception, not the rule.
> 
> DirecTV will not go away. However it will become a niche player, for only those people that can't get an alternative, and likely for some other reason not yet apparent (I'm sure they have plans, like making their DVR's support MySpace or something really "smart").
> 
> ...


Chicago is the "exception" to the rule? That is one pretty big exception. It's only in the top 5 in city size, let alone the entire "metro" area inclusive.

Sure 10 years a LOT can happen... but 10 years is a long time in this game.
I doubt I will have ANY of the equipment I have today, in 10 years... in fact I am sure most of it will be changed at least twice.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Chicago is the "exception" to the rule? That is one pretty big exception. It's only in the top 5 in city size, let alone the entire "metro" area inclusive.
> 
> Sure 10 years a LOT can happen... but 10 years is a long time in this game.
> I doubt I will have ANY of the equipment I have today, in 10 years... in fact I am sure most of it will be changed at least twice.


Yes, some cities are so currupt (not saying Chicago is), that the current cable franchise process is impossible for anyone but the incumbent monopoly. Also, getting digging rights in those same cities can be nearly impossible. However it's not impossible, and Verizon has learned that quickly suing for fair consideration resolves these issues.

Interestingly, the DC metro area appears to be welcoming the competition with open arms.

So yes, one city is an exception, not the rule, by definition. And don't get too excited by Chicago, it's not like it's NYC or anything.

(And you're not in Verizon territory if I understand correctly, so you'll never get FiOS, unless whatever carrier you have is bought by Verizon.)

And finally, 10 years is not that long. DirecTV is 10+ years in, and profits are still sketchy. For this kind of company, 10 years is the ramp up timeframe. DirecTV is already showing signs of failing before they're ramped up.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

AbMagFab said:


> Yes, some cities are so currupt (not saying Chicago is), that the current cable franchise process is impossible for anyone but the incumbent monopoly. Also, getting digging rights in those same cities can be nearly impossible.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


At least we can agree on something  (your first statement)

Thank the lord Chicago isn't NYC (  ), hence why I stay here

I was speaking more of "Fios" in a technology term. It is AT&T/SBC Ucetric or something like that, that is only it's initial phase in Texas... with no information on what any plans are for the future.

And the 10 years ("long time") was more on the technology side of thing, not the business side of things.

10 years ago: 1gb hard drives where considered pretty darn big still, no one would think 512mb was even practical for the cost... Cell phones where the size of your shoe... 26 TV's where consider "big"... IIRC, I think we where just getting the 56k updates for our modems, and still using BBS systems, as the Internet was just getting started (main stream wise). IRD's where $700 for the most advanced....


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> Yes, some cities are so currupt (not saying Chicago is),


Chicago? Corrupt? What an outlandish notion.


> Verizon has learned that quickly suing for fair consideration resolves these issues.


AT&T has been doing the same thing. Verizon and AT&T are also backing both state-wide and nationwide legislation to try and bypass the whole mess.

Oh, and Earl, trust me...AT&T is negotiating with Chicago. Big cities are a more involved process. The smaller suburbs are just easier, and AT&T really wants to get some areas launched besides the couple in Texas that are running.


> Interestingly, the DC metro area appears to be welcoming the competition with open arms.


Good to hear.


> So yes, one city is an exception, not the rule, by definition. And don't get too excited by Chicago, it's not like it's NYC or anything.


Thank goodness for that. (It is OK to hate NYC again, isn't it? It's been long enough, right?)


> (And you're not in Verizon territory if I understand correctly, so you'll never get FiOS, unless whatever carrier you have is bought by Verizon.)


Nope, AT&T...so we'll get U-Verse. Not FTTH during the initial rollout, but the flipside is that it rolls out faster than FIOS does.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> I was speaking more of "Fios" in a technology term. It is AT&T/SBC Ucetric or something like that, that is only it's initial phase in Texas... with no information on what any plans are for the future.


U-Verse, and for what it's worth FIOS and U-Verse are not really alike, technologically speaking. (U-Verse is IPTV, for starters.)

There are things I know that I can't talk about...but AT&T has stated openly that they would like to be in 15-20 markets by year end, with many more to follow in 2007. Of course, as the local villages throw up roadblocks this can change, but AT&T (formerly SBC) has been working on this project for quite some time. They won't really advertise it much at all until they're ready to start selling, although you'll see some vague commercials about getting everything from AT&T -- and, of course, you'll see the anti-cable commercials paid for by some kind of PAC that, most likely, is funded by AT&T and, possibly, Verizon. (The other former baby bells aren't really players in all this...Qwest is a mess and has been for years, and Bellsouth is about to get swallowed up anyway.)

Trust me...it ain't gonna be 10 years. It ain't gonna be 5 -- which is why you may have noticed Comcast's silly Triple Play ads ramping up around here lately.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

drew2k said:
 

> Not all of them, unfortunately. My cable company still has over 70 analog channels, and only new channels are being added to the digital tier.


My cable co., Time-Warner, isn't that bad, but the reason I stay with D* is that TWC can't provide CBS- or FOX-HD and they're openly hostile to the NFL Network.

Everybody likes to peg D* for HD-Lite, but I was talking to the engineer of the local NBC affiliate and he voiced his displeasure with how TW was delivering the NBC HD signal.

I'm interested in FIOS since I'm already a Verizon DSL customer, but since I'm in a small market, I have no idea when that will happen. For the time being, I'm content where I am. No provider can give me everything I want, but I'm with the one that offers me the most of what I want.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Maybe those brilliant engineers that thought up DBS 25 years ago will make it bidirectional at a reasonable price and save the day at the last minute.


----------



## MikeE. (Jun 5, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> A significant portion of ChicagoLand can't get broadband of any type right now (DSL or Cable)


That is a sad but true statement. When I left Aurora (west Chicago suburb, population 157,000+) in 2003 there was still no high speed internet. At least in Kane County portion of Aurora.

When I moved to Aurora in 1994, AT&T Broadband did not even offer digital cable - analog cable was it. That is why I have been a DirecTV subscriber since 1994.

Mike


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

cheer said:


> U-Verse, and for what it's worth FIOS and U-Verse are not really alike, technologically speaking. (U-Verse is IPTV, for starters.)
> 
> There are things I know that I can't talk about...but AT&T has stated openly that they would like to be in 15-20 markets by year end, with many more to follow in 2007. Of course, as the local villages throw up roadblocks this can change, but AT&T (formerly SBC) has been working on this project for quite some time. They won't really advertise it much at all until they're ready to start selling, although you'll see some vague commercials about getting everything from AT&T -- and, of course, you'll see the anti-cable commercials paid for by some kind of PAC that, most likely, is funded by AT&T and, possibly, Verizon. (The other former baby bells aren't really players in all this...Qwest is a mess and has been for years, and Bellsouth is about to get swallowed up anyway.)
> 
> Trust me...it ain't gonna be 10 years. It ain't gonna be 5 -- which is why you may have noticed Comcast's silly Triple Play ads ramping up around here lately.


Well that is some good news....
I at least hope I can dump Comcast as my broadband, and get a fair price for broadband... $60 a month is tiresome...


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> Maybe those brilliant engineers that thought up DBS 25 years ago will make it bidirectional at a reasonable price and save the day at the last minute.


They'd have to be a lot more than just brilliant to make this happen without severe latency.


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> 10 years ago: 1gb hard drives where considered pretty darn big still, no one would think 512mb was even practical for the cost... Cell phones where the size of your shoe... 26 TV's where consider "big"... IIRC, I think we where just getting the 56k updates for our modems, and still using BBS systems, as the Internet was just getting started (main stream wise). IRD's where $700 for the most advanced....


BTW, Not typing to hijack the thread, just responding to the decade history.

Earl, not too bad of a post, but history can be somewhat hazy. 

I don't know what hardware you where buying, but 10 years ago the 16gb hard drive (Note: IBM 16.8GB Deskstar 16GP Titan) was considered pretty darn big, not 1gb hard drives, and I was personally buying 8gb drives for my home computers in 1996. Agreed, two years earlier I thought 1gb drives where big.

Comment: In the next couple of years, with Perpendicular recording, we should easily see 2TB+ hard drives for home use, boy what a change. And we should see a 1TB hard drive by the end of this year.

In 1996, Seagate had just released the Cheetah family, with the first 10,000-rpm hard drives.

Cell phones where not the size of my size 9 shoes, they where about 1/3rd the size, because I had a two year old Nokia analog phone in 1996, which I had bought in mid-1994.

I don't know about you, but I had a standard Sony CRT 32" TV and it was NOT the largest TV of the day, which was held by rear projection televisions.

And I can't really agree with the 56K modem in 1996, because that really didn't take place until 1998 (The Patent for PCM-based client modems was received the week of 9-4-1998 by Brent Townshend, and 3Com Corp. negotiated exclusive rights to the patents after acquiring U.S. Robotics, but I do agree that the 56K modem was invented by Brent Townshend in 1996), but then again my local cable company released cable based broadband in 1997 and I signed up in 1998, using an expensive 3COM cable modem (rented) that I used for four years until 2002, when I replaced it with a Motorola SB5100, which I am still using today.

Additional Information: The V.90 standard for 56K modems was not approved until February 1998, but the 3COM/USR X2 and Lucent/Rockwell K56Flex existed before V.90, but I never bought a 56K modem until they supported the V.90 standard.

As far as the Internet, I was already a heavy user of the Internet by 1996 via a 28.8/33.6 modem, and I had already cancelled my major BBS account in 1995.

Although it isn't important, but in 1984 I was replacing very expensive Bell 208 half-duplex modems in Barrow, Alaska with Hayes 2400 full-duplex modems in synchronous mode because of the multiple satellite latency delays. The Hayes cost less than 1/5th as much and out performed the 4800 baud Bell 208's with more than four times the throughput and a more reliable connection. The half-duplex Bell 208's could not preform mainly because we had to use a huge delay to make up for the satellite latency problems.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> 10 years ago: 1gb hard drives where considered pretty darn big still, no one would think 512mb was even practical for the cost... Cell phones where the size of your shoe... 26 TV's where consider "big"... IIRC, I think we where just getting the 56k updates for our modems, and still using BBS systems, as the Internet was just getting started (main stream wise). IRD's where $700 for the most advanced....


Earl in 2016: Satellite TV was actually being used in non-rural areas; Some people in Chicago didn't have FTTH or IPTV; Some people were actually using cable modems; and people were actually singing the praises of non-Tivo DVR's!


----------



## DDayDawg (Jul 13, 2004)

I think the cable companies, or the fiber guys, will definitely win in the long run. DirecTV was great because it changed the landscape. The Cable Co.s couldn't rest on what they had done. Unfortunately for DirecTV they actually fought back.

The biggest think that makes me thing DirecTV is doomed is packaging. They can't do it like cable/fiber can. Right now my cable co. is offering a deal for cable, internet, and VOIP. With the cable you also get "On Demand" which is growing fast. DirecTV can't do that. In fact the Huges satellite internet is very expensive and can't even be used for anthing requiring low-latency.

In all the AV mags they speculate that TV over IP is the next big step. This is an entire technology that DirecTV is not suited to fill. I don't think they will die in the next ten years, but we are already starting to see the momentum stop and shift the other direction. To me the biggest thing is that DirecTV's customer service has gone from great to terrible in a really short period of time. Even my parent's, who do nothing at all complex, have complained recently about the DirecTV customer service (they have been lied to a number of times, something we are all used to at this point.)

DirecTV seems headed in the wrong direction to me.


----------



## primetime73 (Oct 11, 2005)

The title of this thread really caught my eye. I have to preface my comments with the fact that I am not an engineer but a professional investor who does not own D* or E* or any of the cable/telephone providers but I do use D* and Tivo. (Hence why I read these forums). Anyway I have access to some of the numbers the phone and cable companies throw around regarding IPTV and FiOS. I think the adoption of the IPTV and FiOS will come around and eventually cause major problems for the DBS companies but it is still quite a ways off. 

Just to give some stats for thought. At the end of 2005 64% of U.S. households subscribe to internet services and the split is 37% of US households use broadband and an amazing 27% of households (42% of internet subscribers) still use dial up internet service. I mention this because as Earl stated there are still a lot of people who have no access to high speed services let alone IPTV or such technologies or are not willing pay for them.

Will the telco's spend the money to upgrade the networks? Yes but it will take years and years to upgrade to the capabilities to carry HDTV. For instance, in March of 2006 Verizon said they hope to pass an additonal 3 million households per year with triple play capabilities. This spend will bring them up to 12 million households passed with FTTP by end of 2008. The additonal capital spending caused by the upgrade will be around $1.3B to $1.5 Billion per year. AT&T hopes to spend and additional $1.2B/year so that they may be able to pass 18 million homes by the end of 2008 with FTTN. As of now in September these upgrades have already been delayed. There are about 115 million households in the in the U.S now and that number could be 125 million in 3 years so if these two giants get their act together they hope to pass about 30 million homes in three years or about 24% of U.S. households. These upgrades will allow triple play services but again not being an engineer I don't know what kind of upgrades will be required for FTTP or FTTN to carry HDTV since this spend just represents the fiber and some routing capabilities. My understanding is the logistics of generating and managing the bandwith for HDTV creates a huge need for routers/switches and caching storage.

Finally on Verizon I know that they entered San Antonio with IPTV or FiOS in December of 2005 and hoped to reach 21 markets by the end of 2006, I don't know how successful this has been given their cutback in capital spending. Verizon's Chief Technology Officer stated in March that they had acheived a 20% market share in the 6 markets they entered with FiOS. BellSouth stated they would test market IPTV with 1,000 customers in Atlanta this summer but I don't know how that went either, considering it was only 1000 households they probably don't have the capability to roll it out much more than that. 

To make a long winded post short, I think IPTV is a game changer for DBS co's and cable co's but it will be years before a majority of people have a chance to get the service. In the meantime the sattelites launched by DTV will help them compete against cable especially in rural and underserved markets like my home in Madison where Charter doesn't carry ESPN2 HD, Universal HD, or FoxHD on top of horrid customer service, (never had anything but great experiences with D*), and higher prices


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

slydog75 said:


> I'd guess a large percentage of that 20% still using analog terrestrial broadcasts are in areas not serviced by cable companies, so they're probably going to go to Satellite or they'll just get a digital -> analog converter and continue using terrestrial.


I guess you and Jim missed my point, and I take full responsibility for not making it properly.

I am not really referring to those few who's homes are not passed by cable. What I am referring to is the rest of the technophobe laggards who still only have OTA SD. The reason they still have it 30 years after cable TV came to pass is quite often because they have too much inertia keeping them there. These are people who resist change more than most of us do.

But that will change. In 2009, every single one of them will be faced with a decision, because simple OTA as they know it will be going away. They will each of them have to wake up, swallow hard, and look around and see that any choice they make will involve new equipment and probably some sort of pay-for-play model. They will have to make a choice, and faced with spending on an expensive display, will probably also finally be motivated to put content on it beyond OTA, in the same way that many folks don't think about satellite radio until they are forced to buy a new car.

In 2009, if DTV hasn't experienced a sea change in how they are doing business, PVRs, and content, cable will be the heir apparent for most of those folks.


----------



## agzela (Aug 13, 2006)

It's not been a good week for DIRECTV. Well, at least not for the executives who oversee the company's High-Definition TV service....

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Yet more reasons above, just based on DIrecTV's own actions/inaction. Add to that the increasing competition, and DirecTV is dying.

Early adopters lead the way. We're the first ones to try something new, and the first ones to recognize something that no longer has promise. We'll be leaving DirecTV over the next 1-2 years for Fiber TV and even modern cable.

The rest follow.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Agzela...

You should at least quote the source you copied the article from:
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm

I do still find it very intresting that TVPredictions is the only "news" based website that is listing the Lawsuit... none of the financial sites, nor the major news sites have made one word of it..

(According to a search from news.yahoo.com)
and according to a google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=DirecTV+HDTV+Suit

If you exclude the AVSFamily of forums.... there are not talking about it else where... (I know SAT Guys is to a degree, thus as we know... Internet seraches are not 100% but none the less)


----------



## sher (Feb 24, 2002)

I don't have an HD tv yet, mainly because of the programming, not sure its worth it to upgrade yet.

Directv is iffy, hate to pay for the expensive equipment. We have Charter cable here, I just checked their site and they only offer locals, HBO, ESPN, DIscovery in HD, not enough to justify the move there. Qwest is my phone, they only offer a deal with Directv. The best in programming seems to be Dish. But they have their own issues, and boy I love my TIVO. Thats what keeps me with DTV. 

Until it gets sorted out, I'll just stay with what I have. Don't want to wait too long, the kid just got a job at Best Buy, would like her to buy me a HDTV while there.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

story at Metropolitan News-Enterprise

It ain't the newyorktimes, but heay....


ebonovic said:


> ... none of the financial sites, nor the major news sites have made one word of it..


It's taken two years for this suit to even get to the appeals court. (DirecTV filed a motion to compel arbitration as per their since amended customer agreement)

_from the article:_
"An arbitration clause in a cable television service agreement that barred classwide arbitration of claims was unconscionable, this districts Court of Appeal ruled yesterday."

Where does it go from here? Who knows? Is it newsworthy? Eh.... not yet.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

The point is, it's bad PR at a minimum. Even just the people here, will tell their friends, who tell their frends, etc.

Again, early adopters (people on boards like this) influence the pack.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

jmoak said:


> story at Metropolitan News-Enterprise
> 
> It ain't the newyorktimes, but heay....It's taken two years for this suit to even get to the appeals court. (DirecTV filed a motion to compel arbitration as per their since amended customer agreement)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link (BTW... they need to hire a webdesigner... that link page looked like a blown up NOTEPAD app)...


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> But that will change. In 2009, every single one of them will be faced with a decision, because simple OTA as they know it will be going away. They will each of them have to wake up, swallow hard, and look around and see that any choice they make will involve new equipment and probably some sort of pay-for-play model. They will have to make a choice, and faced with spending on an expensive display, will probably also finally be motivated to put content on it beyond OTA, in the same way that many folks don't think about satellite radio until they are forced to buy a new car.


Or they'll use the coupon the government hands out to OTA-only households and get a set-top converter for free or cheap. I would think they'd lean toward that choice, given what you're describing as their current behavior/attitudes.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Read an article earlier today that said DirecTV signed up about 385,000 new subscribers during the first six months of 2006. And that was half of what they signed up in the same period in 2005.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Isn't that the same Phillip Swann that seems to regularly take a lot of heat from folks on this very forum? If so, I'm beginning to see why.

In particular, I take issue with the characterization that MPEG-4 delivery is "supposed to be cleaner and more detailed" than current (MPEG-2) delivery methods. WTF?

"Detailed" is a pretty narrow term, and would almost have to be confined to resolution. That would mean that MPEG-4 delivery would have to have better resolution than M2. The only way that could possibly be true, would be if they abandon the 1280x1080 for 1920x1080. I had not heard that they were expecting to do that under M4, but maybe the lawsuit and accompanying publicity will pressure them in that direction. Regardless, resolution is independent of M4/M2...a distantly-related side-issue. M4 does not inherently have "more detail". So "more detailed" could only refer to a comparison between circa-2005 DTV MPEG-2 (currently at 1280x1080) vs. circa-2007 DTV MPEG-4 (maybe possibly at 1920x1080), which are very precise "apples and oranges", certainly not a sweeping statement regarding the virtues of M4 vs. M2. And we have no evidence that they will even actually abandon 1280x1080 under M4.

"Cleaner", well that is a pretty nebulous term. It must refer, however, to M4 having less artifacts impeding the PQ. Maybe that's a leap, but for the life of me I can't imagine what else it could refer to.

But M4 does NOT have fewer artifacts per se, it only has fewer artifacts when the bit rate is not reduced to allow for more streams in the payload, and there is every indication that this is the DTV plan, more stuff, not "cleaner" stuff. And, chaining M4 delivery to M2 original content has inherent PQ flaws of its own, so I do not predict anything "cleaner", let alone "more detailed" in DTV's bleak future.


----------



## rdowdy95 (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey guys. I now have an R15 and HR20 from Directv. I won't miss my Tivo cause I actually like the new GUI of these new ones. Tivo was great and easy, but it was slow. I guess it is because I never did get to see the light of 6.3.

Anyways I think alot of you that have Directv are mad. Cause in the future if you want the newest stuff you will have to switch boxes to the Directv NDS stuff (or new gui).

Many of you are prolly looking at cable. Well when cable does get the Tivo stuff just watch. I bet cable will jack that dvr price up a little bit.

If you love Tivo and MPEG4 HD get the H10 and a new Series 3 Tivo. That would be your best bet.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rdowdy95 said:


> If you love Tivo and MPEG4 HD get the H10 and a new Series 3 Tivo. That would be your best bet.


FYI... T3 can not record the HD output from an H10


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

And maybe I'm missing something, but why not make a Tivo that can record HD directly, either from component or HDMI, or firewire, for that matter?

I think it's absolutely technically possible, so why aren't we seeing that? I think probably everybody on TC and AVS would jump at the chance to buy one.

It must be a DRM issue, the same one that prevents digital recording on DVDRs. But component HD is analog, so why not?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> And maybe I'm missing something, but why not make a Tivo that can record HD directly, either from component or HDMI, or firewire, for that matter?
> 
> I think it's absolutely technically possible, so why aren't we seeing that? I think probably everybody on TC and AVS would jump at the chance to buy one.
> 
> It must be a DRM issue, the same one that prevents digital recording on DVDRs. But component HD is analog, so why not?


$$$$$$$ issues.

The cheapest items I have seen out there are around the $1,500 mark just to capture and encode a component video stream....

The tehcnology/price point hasn't gotten to where it needs to be to make it a reasonable box for mass consumer purchase. And when that time gets here....

You can bet they would already kick in the DRM stuff that will block component outputs on some of these boxes.

Curious... I haven't followed all the T3 threads....
Did they have to follow the same things that the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray did... having to downrez on component outputs if a flag was set?


----------



## cableric (Oct 11, 2006)

tbeckner said:


> Agreed my local cable company (bendbroadband.com) hasn't expanded the fiber from the curb to the house, but they do offer fiber for small businesses, and I really don't expect them to offer FTTH for at least the next three years.


BendBroadband launched their FTTH initiative last month in Aspen Lakes, customers love it. All future subdivisions will be FTTH as the cost per home passed has flipped between copper and fiber (fiber is now cheaper). Not sure when BBB plans on extending fiber from the node to the home on existing lines.

cableric


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

cableric said:


> BendBroadband launched their FTTH initiative last month in Aspen Lakes, customers love it. All future subdivisions will be FTTH as the cost per home passed has flipped between copper and fiber (fiber is now cheaper). Not sure when BBB plans on extending fiber from the node to the home on existing lines.
> 
> cableric


Good news, but BendBroadband hasn't exactly advertised FTTH. It isn't listed on their web page, and like you said, they haven't announced when FTTH will happen for the FTTC people, which I am part of.

If they announced FTTH for my area, I would be the first to sign up. I am a InstaNet Deluxe customer with a fixed IP address and analog/digtial cable. And in fact, I am a VoIP customer with two lines and have been a VoIP user for almost two years, but not with BendBroadband, they didn't offer it two years ago. The reason I haven't switched to BendBroadband VoIP is that I would have to purchase their VoIP cable modem. I am still using my Motorola SB5100 that I purchased four years ago for $50.00 to replace the rented 3COM cable modem from 1998.

Since you PM'd me, you might like to know that I have been a BendBroadband Internet customer since 1998, and I went with DirecTV over a decade ago (October 1994), because DirecTV offered a higher quality picture (analog cable still sucks), 4-6 times the number of channels (now only 1.5 times the number of SD channels), and features like PPV (which BB has, but also offers VOD), which BendBroadband really couldn't compete with until a few years ago.

But understand, I am grandfathered at DirecTV (I have access to additional programming which most people don't) and I have five DirecTiVos (all MRV'd), so jumping into digitial cable for all of my video needs with BendBroadband will have to wait a few more years, maybe just about the time that I jump into HD in 2009 or 2008, and maybe with a Series 4 TiVo, that doesn't exist yet.

With my investment in TiVo (or maybe I should say DirecTiVo), I am not interested in using Moxi or Motorola from BendBendbroad as a DVR, and the Series 3 TiVo is just not ready for primetime. Cable has a very bright future (especially BendBroadband), but cable isn't there yet for me. When it makes sense, I will walk away from DirecTV, just like I did from Bend Cable in 1994.

As you asked in the PM, I have no "Bias" against cable, in fact I am positive cable and have been supporting the concept that DirecTV/Echostar cannot compete against FTTH and ultimately IPTV.

In just the last month, a fiber connection (at about 100km) was made at 8 terabits per second, which would allow the downloading of around 120 HD movies in 1 second. With fast two communications that fiber could allow, I can't see how Murdoch or Malone or Ergen could ever compete.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> A significant portion of ChicagoLand can't get broadband of any type right now (DSL or Cable)


That seems odd. Out here in PortLand, it is rare to not have access to some form of broadband unless you are more than 20 miles out or so. You would think that the greater Chicago area infrastructure would have been built up by now.

Are there other barriers besides financial, ie government regs, etc, that are keeping your service providers from offering the service?


----------



## satfam (Mar 5, 2004)

Count me done with DTV. I have been a customer since 1996. I have an HR10-250, H-10, and 2 Directivos. I spend about $105/mo. I just called to see about replacing the H-10 and 1 of the DTivos with the new HR20. I was told that I could only get 1 per every 6 months and that it would cost $300. The CSR said I could go to BB and pick up the second one for the same price. I told him this was way too much and he came back with $150 offer. I then said I was not going to haggle and that my friend just got a $99 offer. He said he would match the price but that was the best he could do. I said thanks but I would switch to cable. He said that was my choice (politely) and I said thanks. I guess cable, here I come. By the way, this was the retention number I called.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Same happened for me satfam. Tried all I could from February to June. In the end I am thrilled I ended up back with cable. Never thought I'd ever be in a situation to say that.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

I just had cable come by today to install. They failed miserably on the cable-cards for the Series 3, but the rest is up and running. I have one SA Tivo set up with a cable box, and it works great. Going to BB tomorrow to get 2 SA-DT's to complete my setup (and someday a second Series 3).

So when you cancelled - did they charge you for some committment? Any way to see if I'm still committed in any way? I've been a customer for 10+ years, but they seem to sneak in new committments if I go to the bathroom too often.

Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

tbeckner said:


> years ago.In just the last month, a fiber connection (at about 100km) was made at 8 terabits per second, which would allow the downloading of around 120 HD movies in 1 second. With fast two communications that fiber could allow, I can't see how Murdoch or Malone or Ergen could ever compete.


The only problem with the "120 HD movies in 1 second" statement is that there aren't 120 total HD movies right now that I'd want to see. Who cares how fast the pipe is if there's mostly cr*p on it! Add to that draconian DRM associated with HD.

But DirecTV has clearly lost the "magic" that made them so much better than cable. Now they are merely an alternative that has both pluses and minuses.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Man I have sooo many thoughts on this.

First off I think directv might be fine for technology to provide HD.

They have the 2 space ways up now that together have the capability to carry 500 LIL HD channels. They currently have, I believe the top 36 markets with some LIL HD content. That covers well more than half the viewers in the country. At some point in 2007 they will have their next 2 Ka sats to fit another 1000 LIL (total of 1500- are there even 1500 Local stations? If so probably no where near that many will be HD right?). And also 150 HD national channels. All that will fit in just 2 of their 3 Ka slots, so you have to figure they could toss up another HD KA sat at 101 and probably do another 100 national channels. SO they have plenty of technology to allow HD just fine.

BUT and heres the big but- they dont appear to have the will. They dont seem to think they need to do it anytime soon. Remember those 2 spaceway sats that hold 500 LILs? Well how many LILs are there on them? 36x4 plus ~20 RSNs and you dont even get 200 stations. The birds have been up and operating for a year now and yet they havent even used HALF the capacity of them. There is no other rational conclusion that Ive seen besides they dont think the money for encoders and backhaul is worth spending to provide more HD LIL. They think they can provide just enough and get by.

The result- they could probably cover another 10 or 15% of the us households with HD LIL, but even worse than that is the 36 markets they do decide to serve they serve poorly. They dont carry all the HD Channels like the cable companies serving most people do. So for most people the Local HD offering from Direct is inferior to cable and for no technological reason at all- just because they are cheep. They are sitting on tons of unused bandwidth.

So HD neednt be their downfall but it doesnt appear they care to keep it from being their downfall.

This is the main reason I left this past month to get cable with a series3. I can get all my locals in HD plus my RSNs. I am not some lazy john q public who wont bother with an antenna - I have an antenna for Ota so I can get all the broadcast networks in HD OTA. BUT due to a fluke of geography I get them from a neighboring DMA. For most stuff thats fine, but for my local sports teams no dice. Cable is my only hope. 

Next up- the 2-way problem, As said above- they have pulled off some amazing technology feats over the years- directv sure has. They started with mpeg1 at 101 (I know I had it then). Then they did MPEG2ish. Then they added the side slots. Then they figured out spot beams,. Now KA and phased array antennas. For one way TV they could be able to beat cable for years to come. BUT what do you do about 2 way? As posted above unless they change the laws of physics latency becomes an issue. First problem here is triple play. A few people above mentioned the expensive cable bills so let me digress and hit on that. Since Directv has decided to match cables annual rate increases every year since Rupert came to be king, triple plays bundle effectively negates the pricing if you are open minded to where you get your phone and broadband. IN MY particular case, I switched to triple play. I went from 3 TVs with directv to 4 TVs with cable. I get TWICE the number of locals in HD and almost TWICE the national HD channels as Directv. My broadband is literally 10 times faster than my old DSL, and my VOIP is the same as a POTS in anyway that I can figure. Instead of paying one $5.95 DVR fee per month for 2 dvrs from directv I pay for 3 TiVo brand DVRs. I also have to pay to rent 2 cable cards for my series 3. When all is said and done I save $8 a month compared to my old directv plus phone company bill. And the kicker- the first year the bundle is $50 off so I save another $600 the first year- in a month or 2 that will equal the street cost of a series3. So a new cable sub will essentially get an S3 for free- far cry from having to pay $200 to $400 to directv in lease down payment and not even owning the box with directv.

Where was I- oh yeah 2-way. SO besides being at a bundle price disadvantage, what are they going to do with VOD and PPV. I forget the exact numbers but they are around here someplace- some PHENOMENAL amount of people order PPV each day from Directv. SO clearly PPV and VOD could be important to some people. (To me It is NOT). TO appease those people Directv has reserved gigs of their new DVRs for downloadable vod choices. They have also discussed broadband downloads of other content- I think they have said they want 100 movies on the hard drive and 1,000s more for broadband download? This plain is sooo funny I almost cry while laughing so hard about it every time I think of it. How will those conversations go? 

Customer: Hi I Just paid $200 bucks for your dvr to lease it because your adds say I could get 1,000s of vod choices from it. But all I have are 100 choices. What gives?
D*CSR  well sir, those first 100 are downloaded to your hard drive, to get the rest you need to call your cable company to order broadband and connect it to your DVR
Customer connect my directv dvr to cable?
D*CSR  well not cable, cable broadband. Oh and another thing dont get the regular speed- buy the upgrade so its fast enough. You need at least 7Mbps for our MP4 HD movies
Customer OK I really hate cable so whatever I have to do to get vod from you
Customer calling cable Hi can I get 7Mbps broadband for vod from directv?
Cable CSR sure- thats $50 dollars. Would you like triple play for $100 for the first year and get digital cable AND unlimited phone and all the VOD you want?
Customer wait I can have TV and phone for just $50 more? I already pay Directv $55 a month since they keep jacking the fees. Sign me up so I can save $5 plus I can get my phone for FREE too! Ill take off Monday- send someone right away 

Yeah thats a brilliant plan.

Lack of 2 way is a major problem. No buts about it.

About Verizon and FIOS: 
I too agree that it wont be soon before they make a major difference across the country. But its not as slow as some here suggest. Once they get a statewide franchise they can move quick. Here in NJ they just passed the law to get statewide franchises Aug 6. Verizon is hoping to offer video to 200 towns before year end. There are 560 towns in NJ- considering their cherry picking and all- I have to think they will QUICKLY make an impact here. And half of NJ is smack dab in DirecTVs largest DMA. Verizon could become the largest pay TV provider in NJ in just a few years. It probably will be 10 or more years before Telco tv is a major player across the US but in some places it wont be nearly that long. 

As much as I think cable is evil, and never ever ever planned to pay them a dime. I know find that directv failed me so much that cable is like my new best friend. Go figure.


----------



## satfam (Mar 5, 2004)

As I indicated earlier, I just cancelled my DTV. The last CSR I talked with offered me the $99 upgrade and a second $199 HD DVR with a $199 credit, $10 off/per month for a year and free Showtime for 6 months. I still didn't bite. I had already scheduled a cable install for tomorrow afternoon. They should take customers more seriously when they indicate they are considering cable. I also did not want to be locked into a 2 year committment. I figure if I am not happy with cable I could always get FIOS hopefully by then.


----------



## ravedog (Apr 23, 2003)

One of the reason we haven't switch to cable: the Sports packages. At least with NFL Sunday ticket, DirecTV has an *exclusive deal* until 2011 keeping us with them until at least then.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ravedog said:


> One of the reason we haven't switch to cable: the Sports packages. At least with NFL Sunday ticket, DirecTV has an *exclusive deal* until 2011 keeping us with them until at least then.


yup-

if you need one of the packages then directv is the way to go.

I feel sorry for you folks stuck in that bind though. THere is no win. Get the sports pacakge you want but get crap for HD. IT's a bad situation.

I wish you luck- maybe sometime around the end of 2007 they figure it's time to spend some money to get some use out of all those Ka sats. there's really no reason they cant kick butt except they just dont seem to feel like doing it...


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

ravedog said:


> One of the reason we haven't switch to cable: the Sports packages. At least with NFL Sunday ticket, DirecTV has an *exclusive deal* until 2011 keeping us with them until at least then.


D* has always positioned itself as the premier service for the sports fan, w/ Sunday Ticket as the centerpiece of that strategy. It's why I stay with them, even w/ FIOS available. I'm hoping to see the "league passes" in HD when the new birds are up and operating.

The first service to get me NESN Sox/Bruins games in HD down here in Florida will get my business (even if I have to lose Sunday Ticket in the process).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bwaldron said:


> ...
> 
> The first service to get me NESN Sox/Bruins games in HD down here in Florida will get my business (even if I have to lose Sunday Ticket in the process).


I think some cable providers have some MLB extra innings and center ice. You should check into that if you have a decent cable compnay. I think only Sunday TIcket is exclusive - and the rest are open to whoever wants to buy 'em. Seems directv picks up the most games but I'd think the Sox at least would be in the top tier of MLB teams to get shown even if a provdier only picked up a few games a night.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

Yeah, the local cable company has the league passes. Nothing in HD, though...and they don't even carry ESPN2-HD. 

FIOS doesn't have any of the league pass stuff. Hopefully that will change, but I don't see them as pushing sports as a marketing focus, at least at this point.

Unless and until something changes, I'll stick with D*.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

maybe fios is tryign to reach critical mass to make it worthwhile. It would seem a no brainer- they have reletively unlimited bandwidth and I would imagine they only get charged for sports packages if people order them so I wonder why they dont offer it.


----------



## Erictaub (Mar 5, 2004)

I'm doing a story for the NY Times about why people are switching from cable to satellite to Fios, and vice-versa.

Anyone who has had one service and switched to another and would like to talk about why, please send me a private message w/your contact info., and I'll call you.

Thanks,
Eric Taub


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I just switched and I can sum it up on one word. Choice!
In my case it was not about price. I had total choice premiere and 4 receivers.

I told DTV, I was very upset when they went to a single HW provider and eliminated competitive options in the user experience. I am going to Cable now and will always keep my eyes open for options.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I just switched and I can sum it up on one word. Choice!


Whatever. Time-Warner give me choice: take it or leave it! I chose the latter.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I never said cable was any better. I just meant I will go to the provider that offers me the most choice in user technology. Now its cable, tomorrow it could be FIOS, after that it could be IPTV.

But I want to decide, not some company that forces their view from channels to software experience.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I never said cable was any better. I just meant I will go to the provider that offers me the most choice in user technology. Now its cable, tomorrow it could be FIOS, after that it could be IPTV.
> 
> But I want to decide, not some company that forces their view from channels to software experience.


Each of those three distribution methods you listed.... are almost equally as closed to "choice" on the hardware.

Cable-Co's are fighting Cable-Card's tooth and nail... and if you do go with Cable-Card methods, as of right now.. you are limited in the feature set you can access from the Cable-Co's.

FIOS will probably follow suit in the long run, but right now... their hardware is usually limited to what they offer to you... I haven't followed the Cable-Card discussion on the FIOS level.

And IPTV... is almost usually hardware specific... I have an IPTV service, but I am limited to that hardware and that provider. If I wanted a 2nd IPTV service, I would need a 2nd box for that 2nd service.

As these user end boxes get more advanced and the feature sets by the providers increase... CHOICE is going to be very minimal.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Maybe so but at least there is SOME choice and I will always vote in the direction where it exists and tell the people I am leaving why. I disconnected DTV last friday and made it a strong that it was not about price and it was not so much about Tivo it was about choice.

IPTV is not HW specific. I can watch youtube. I can download shows from Itunes, direct from the networks. Streaming is alive and well. Maybe from the traditional gods its specific like say ATT but the world is opening up very fast to get shows directly from the source.

Cable companies, Satellite companies, and phone companies are going to have competition from the content providers. Why do they want to pay for middle men if they can deliver it directly.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> FIOS will probably follow suit in the long run, but right now... their hardware is usually limited to what they offer to you... I haven't followed the Cable-Card discussion on the FIOS level.


FIOS "offers" cable cards; i.e., they are available...but they don't appear any more enthusiastic about them than do the cable companies.

I am on the side of those desiring choice, and am rooting for Tivo to succeed with the S3. But I'm not optimistic, and moving to cable/FIOS/whatever solely on the basis of their providing (allowing for, actually) choice is not likely to be a useful strategy in the near future.

There are, of course, other valid reasons to choose one provider over another...and thank goodness we at least have competition in that arena!


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> IPTV is not HW specific. I can watch youtube. I can download shows from Itunes, direct from the networks. Streaming is alive and well. Maybe from the traditional gods its specific like say ATT but the world is opening up very fast to get shows directly from the source.


There are some IPTV services that ARE hardware specific (Akimbo for example)

There are other IPTV services that are NOT hardware specific as you pointed out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

most important "choice" aspect of cable in my mind is you can choose to leave whenever you want.

You dont get a new 2 year commitment everytime you call to check your balance.

(exaggerating I know but I might have given Directv a shot with there PLUS hd mpeg4 dvr since it came out before the series 3. But a 2 year committment to rent a box is just foul in my mind. A year likely wouldn't bother me too much, but 2 years is an eternity right now with all the changes going on all the time for HD)


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> most important "choice" aspect of cable in my mind is you can choose to leave whenever you want.
> 
> You dont get a new 2 year commitment everytime you call to check your balance.


Very valid point indeed. I am near the end of my latest commiitment, and am not about to begin a new one by testing out the HR20, which I'd otherwise be willing to do (once OTA is enabled).

Sticking with my HR10-250 for now, and examining my options in terms of programming providers (and DVRs) ... even considering (gasp!) going back to cable, which I left 15+ years ago when I installed my BUD.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> most important "choice" aspect of cable in my mind is you can choose to leave whenever you want.
> 
> You dont get a new 2 year commitment everytime you call to check your balance.
> 
> (exaggerating I know but I might have given Directv a shot with there PLUS hd mpeg4 dvr since it came out before the series 3. But a 2 year committment to rent a box is just foul in my mind. A year likely wouldn't bother me too much, but 2 years is an eternity right now with all the changes going on all the time for HD)


You are right... they just do those commitments in different ways...

You want 4 free months of service...
You'll get it Month 3, Month 6, Month 9, Month 12

So no it is not a "commitment" in the sense that DirecTV's is...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> You are right... they just do those commitments in different ways...
> 
> You want 4 free months of service...
> You'll get it Month 3, Month 6, Month 9, Month 12
> ...


you mean cable does that 4 free months?

I dont know about in the midwest but here around NY- the first year cable compnaies basically all charge you just $99 for triple play each and every month. There are no strings. You're not even committed to stay the whole year.

Verizon has a triple play here that currently uses directv for the video leg. They require ONE year committment just for the directv part. My friend got that with DVR's from directv and still only got a one year committment forced on him from directv.

Seems only DIrectv (and dish?) themselves have stupid 2-year committments.

Cell phone companies at least give you an option of 1 year or 2 and hand you differnt subsidies depending on what you decide you are comfortable with.

If anyone did do every third month free then that too would be a nice compromise.

I used to think nothing of annual commitments from directv, I would never dream about going to the "evil cable empire". But in the past year directv has just totally fumbled the HD ball- now that they are so slow to roll out HD signing up for 2 years is an eternity.

Cable is selling people on their service and pricing and assumes you will stay. Directv is afraid to compete anymore and feels the need to lock people in to outlandish committments. That should tell you what they each think of their own competitiveness right there.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> you mean cable does that 4 free months?


They have done it in the past... 
As it was one of those "in the fine print things on the TV", which you can read now with a DVR...

I am not sure what they are doing now.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> Cable is selling people on their service and pricing and assumes you will stay. Directv is afraid to compete anymore and feels the need to lock people in to outlandish committments. That should tell you what they each think of their own competitiveness right there.


I don't think that is the entire reason.

Some of this equipment they are giving away for "free" or "cheap".
Even from a lease point of view.

Is pretty expensive.... If anyone things the HR20 costs $99 to build.... yikes.
So they are simply going towards the cell phone model of things.

Here is a piece of equipment at a low price, but you need to stick around long enough so we can generate enough revenue to offset that cost.

And before someone goes... well you have to return the lease box.
Well yes... but that least box's value drops so fast as month and month go by, as parts get cheaper over the years.

The box that cost say $600 to build today, isn't worth $600 next year.

And their contract brakage fee isn't "outrageous" high, but okay compared to others. $300 for 2 years... and it is prorated... so if you quit after one year... $150

Compared to Cingular. To deactivate my father's cell phone service, after he dided... the cancelation bill was over $900


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> I don't think that is the entire reason.
> 
> Some of this equipment they are giving away for "free" or "cheap".
> Even from a lease point of view.
> ...


Cableco dvrs cost about the same as the hr20 to produce. By not requiring a contract, I believe cablecos/FiOS have a competitive advantage that we as consumers will continue to benefit from.

D* cannot compete with cable/FiOS right now and therefore has instituted a 2 year contract in hopes to dissuade subs from leaving before D* can get their mpeg4 and hd channel lineup act together. Once this happens I feel D* will drop their mandatory 2 year obligation.

Now if only we can get Verizon or Cingular to follow suit............


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Compared to Cingular. To deactivate my father's cell phone service, after he dided... the cancelation bill was over $900


Explain that? Did he have a big outstanding balance with multiple phone lines or something. I have never heard of a cancellation penalty that large.

DTV/Dish/Cable aside, I can agree to hate the cell phone companies even more.
Their terms are worse than the peanut shuffle at times.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> Explain that? Did he have a big outstanding balance with multiple phone lines or something. I have never heard of a cancellation penalty that large.


He had four phones on the account (family package).
His, My Grandmothers, His Fiance, and my sister.

The plan was about 3 months old at the time of his death

$150 ding per phone ($600)
$150 contract termination

Some other taxes and fees, and the previous months charges (Even though there was a woping 5 minutes used of the 1,500 plan).

After taxes and some other stuff... it was over $900... and then when they sent it to collection, it when up another $150 to over $1,000....

And this was after when we canceled them telling us there would be no penalties...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> I don't think that is the entire reason.
> 
> ...Here is a piece of equipment at a low price, but you need to stick around long enough so we can generate enough revenue to offset that cost.
> 
> ...


if they have a superior product people would stick around the year regardless. Cable seems to try and get people to stick aorund with a carrot ($50 off a month for the first year) while DBS likes to keep people around with a stick called early cancellation fees.

Directv and DIsh used to kick the butt of cable. They didn't need 2 year commitments. Now they dont kick cables butt and Pay TV like cell phones have become a commodity. Roughly the same with certain plans at certain providers being slightly better or worse depending on people's particular situations. Since DBS has allowed cable to catch us- they need to fight the commodity churn with the nasty commitment periods.

Sure it's reletively cheap and painless to get out for most people that can afford pay tv, but it's just a bad mentality- using a stick instead of a carrot.

Why dont they do your one free month a a quarter deal as an example?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I had the privilege of closing out my fathers estate a few years ago. Fortunately We did have any issues and my brother who was living with him had a prearrangement to inherit the house . So all I had to do was divide up the various monies and close out accounts.

So it sounds like none of the other people wanted to keep their phone and make it the primary or was that not allowed either.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I had the privilege of closing out my fathers estate a few years ago. Fortunately We did have any issues and my brother who was living with him had a prearrangement to inherit the house . So all I had to do was divide up the various monies and close out accounts.
> 
> So it sounds like none of the other people wanted to keep their phone and make it the primary or was that not allowed either.


I wish closing my dad's estate was that easy... (last post on it in this thread).

My grandmother just used the phone to talk to my dad
His fiance, well... let's say since his death we have learned a lot about her family.
So my sister just opted to start a new account.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> if they have a superior product people would stick around the year regardless. Cable seems to try and get people to stick aorund with a carrot ($50 off a month for the first year) while DBS likes to keep people around with a stick called early cancellation fees.
> 
> Directv and DIsh used to kick the butt of cable. They didn't need 2 year commitments. Now they dont kick cables butt and Pay TV like cell phones have become a commodity. Roughly the same with certain plans at certain providers being slightly better or worse depending on people's particular situations. Since DBS has allowed cable to catch us- they need to fight the commodity churn with the nasty commitment periods.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Attempting to reduce churn contractually is a loser's game. If you provide the best programming and service, there's no need to do it. If it means charging higher monthly box fees, comparable to cable, then so be it.

I've been with D* since 1998, and only recently have even considered leaving.

It's a very competititve market down here, especially since FIOS has shown up. Given D*'s current programming lineup, picture quality, and costs, I'm not sure I would choose them were I a new customer looking at my options. Unless I absolutely demanded Sunday Ticket -- in which case you wouldn't need a 2-year commitment to keep me.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> You are right... they just do those commitments in different ways...
> 
> You want 4 free months of service...
> You'll get it Month 3, Month 6, Month 9, Month 12
> ...


Wow, talk about twisted logic. That's not a commitment, that's an incentive. Huge difference. And on top of that, they offer huge discounts with no committments.

Cable has ZERO commitment. I just got a great deal for 12 months of service (about $50 off per month), and I can leave whenever I want. No ties, nothing.

Never heard of a free month every 3 months, but even so, I can leave whenever I want. That's the key point. No contracts, no ties, no commitments.

DirecTV locks you in for 2 years for just about anything - seems if I check the website for my balance I'm stuck for two more years.

Glad to be (almost) done with DirecTV, crappy picture, lousy HD offering, and third-rate non-Tivo DVR's. And done with the commitments.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I expected a lot more innovate products to happen when Murdoch bought it. Some sort of integration between newspaper, TV, and delivery. I know the regulatory people didnt want him to exclude programmings from his competitors but thats different from integration of product.

I get the feeling he gave up pretty quickly and decided not to make DTV part of any grand integrated scheme.

Not that I love Dish but Eddy is pretty focused on the satellite delivery and not other stuff like newspapers, tv networks, etc. I think he would have driven to market whatever evolution he was visioning faster.

Now with DTV being put in executive leadership limbo, I would guess major initiatives will slow down until everything is made clear. Yes they will probably work on software upgrades and roll out scheduled satellites but some of that could be put on hold as a major expenditure. Rupert could say let the new guy pay for it.

I keep thinking that direct delivery of content straight from the providers is going to eventually hurt the cable/sat people. For example I can download desperate housewives directly from ABC the next day. As that evolves and we get higher speed pipes, why go satellite. Cable can provide the internet pipe in an integrated transition from cable delivered video to internet delivered video.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

zalusky said:


> I keep thinking that direct delivery of content straight from the providers is going to eventually hurt the cable/sat people. For example I can download desperate housewives directly from ABC the next day. As that evolves and we get higher speed pipes, why go satellite. Cable can provide the internet pipe in an integrated transition from cable delivered video to internet delivered video.


Even better, FiOS can provide bigger pipes, and Tivo can provide a better way to browse and view on the TV. Cable is so old-school and unfashionable... FTTH is the way to go.


----------



## finaldiet (May 10, 2004)

I've seen Comcast advertizing ( cable, internet and phone) for $33 a month for 1 year just the other day. I live in the SW burbs of Chi-town. I probably would try it out, but I just had my phone service changed recently.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

AbMagFab said:


> Even better, FiOS can provide bigger pipes, and Tivo can provide a better way to browse and view on the TV. Cable is so old-school and unfashionable... FTTH is the way to go.


Can you call up ATT and tell them that! FTTN is so halfway.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

AT&T is so last century... Big grown-up Baby Bells are cool.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

AbMagFab said:


> AT&T is so last century... Big grown-up Baby Bells are cool.


Can you call up Verizon and tell them to service my neighborhood.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Can you call up ATT and tell them that! FTTN is so halfway.


It's funny to me how the 3 remaining big telco players all see things so totally different.

VZ is laying FTTH as fast as they can. ATT people essentially call verizons plan stupid and plan to just do fiber half way there. Sprint thinks there are both idiots and ditched their local wirleines planning instead to go moblie wimax and apparently built the last mile wirelessly.

VZ is splitting off their phone book division since they want to focus on fiber and cell. ATT talks about how they see their phone books being a big part of their future. Sprint I dont think eer even owned their phoine books- they seemed to contract it to R.H.DOnnelly.

Pretty amazing that the 3 mega phone compnaies left all see the market so differntly. I guess it just goes to show you that this is a time of much upheavel in the communications business.

I think cable really has an advantage in technology. THey have triple play now. Many of them have a deal with sprint to give them quadruple play with sprints wireless service. If they could combine to get the geographic advantages like VZ and ATT have then it could get ugly.

(should qaulify- CURRENT advantage- fios could kick cables current plant and it's likely a matter of time till VZ figers out quadruple play- att can at least match cable with it's fiber to someplace plan. If cable is smart they would make sure to keep ahead and not let everyone else catch up squandering the huge lead they have- like DBS has done....)


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

You're right. DBS had a tremendous advantage with SD, pricing and frankly for a period of time, non-TiVo DVR. However, they completely squandered that advantage completely. 

Then you had the whole FTTC/FTTD debate.

Add in the whole Verizon FiOS marketing.

Then the timing and costs associated with the different strategies.

Cable certainly has the advantage if you're considering converges services including both IP and video, as they have an established cable plant which was created purely as a result of build-out requirements as estalished by the Telecommunication Act of 1996. 

That same advantage could easily now turn to a risk, however since the cost to upgrade that same infrastructure is very large, and if Verizon is for example no required to commit to the same provisions. In that case Verizon as an example would have a significant advantage over the cable MSOs

Across the industry, the common thought is that should this happen the MSOs would then (because as a result of those legislative changes they would also fall under) start to concentrate only on those primary areas which Verizon has entered. Further, that they would then (as they would be legally allowed to do) begin to assess additional "maintenance" charges to users in those less lucrative geographic areas. Though it is highly unlikely that they would go to the extreme, such changes allow them to abandon service in such areas.

So the upheaval will continue, and frankly legislative changes will probably have the greatest impact on the outcome. Because of the geographic vulnerabilities of Sprint's approach, and AT&T's mixed message, I'm guessing that Verizon has the biggest edge going forward IF the legislative changes take place. 

If they do not and build-out requirements remain in place, Verizon will absolutely continue to roll out FiOS. They will still earn profits and gain subs. And there would be more competition long term with less certain outcomes.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> Well, 100% of terrestrial programming will be DT only 28 short months from now, so HD will definitely be hugely on every single viewer's radar by then.


but dont they have to get people over the fact that all DT isnt HD ?


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

newsposter said:


> but dont they have to get people over the fact that all DT isnt HD ?


Ain't that the truth!

I can't count the number of times someone has told me that "everything will be in HD" in 2009.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

bwaldron said:


> Ain't that the truth!
> 
> I can't count the number of times someone has told me that "everything will be in HD" in 2009.


well if 'everyone' says it, hopefully it's true  talk about a fantasy coming true...it's just sad to watch SD ota and see the HD commercials. I think, hey if the darn 30 second commercial can be HD, why not my show!

I know the put 'HD sponsored by " on some shows, i hope there's more of that in the future. I'd even take an HD bug for the advertiser!


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

All my locals have been HD for over 2 years. That's done is pretty much every medium-to-large market. 2009 is when they shut of analog, but they're almost done with HD already.

That doesn't mean every show will be produced in HD, just broadcast that way. See Survivor.

HD is great. If you're not impressed, no biggie, but don't complain to those of us that are blissfully happy with it, and willing to pay to get as much of it as possible.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> That doesn't mean every show will be produced in HD, just broadcast that way. See Survivor.


Actually there are and I expect will continue to be a number of channels that broadcast digitally but not in HD. Network affiliates mainly upconvert all programming to HD resolution, but a lot of smaller independent channels send out 480 digitally (not to mention various subchannels on network affiliates).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bwaldron said:


> Actually there are and I expect will continue to be a number of channels that broadcast digitally but not in HD. Network affiliates mainly upconvert all programming to HD resolution, but a lot of smaller independent channels send out 480 digitally (not to mention various subchannels on network affiliates).


pax seems to be the only english language broadcast "network" that doesn't have HD on their main x-1 subchannel.

THe Big 4 do the vast majority of their network programming in HD. Most primetime (survivor is an example of the odd SD only show) is HD. THe morning news programs are moving to HD (the biger 3 might already be?). Most sports are in HD. Latenight (letterman, leno, conan at least) is HD. Even jeopardy and wheel of fortune are in HD.

CW and My seem to have a decent amount too- but not tons like the big 4.

I think that the O&O affiliates are working to change their news over to HD also. So from 5pm till 1am you will get HD on some local affiliates.

Although everythign wont be HD for sure- sure looks like the majority of the most watched programs are already in HD and it's very possible that all of the big 4 main channel network programming will be HD when the plug gets pulled on analog.


----------



## DDayDawg (Jul 13, 2004)

You have to keep in mind that the government didn't make the push to Digital Broadcasting to help out HD. They did it to get their hands on those frequencies that the TV stations have been hogging all these years.

This is a happy accident that HD came about at the same time so most broadcasters are just taking this time of change to wrap both together. I think most everything will be capable of broadcasting in HD but it will take a good long time before all the cameras are upgraded and we get to see all HD.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Good point- the government cares about nothing really but getting to sell the sprctrum freed.

But what do you mean by "hogging"?


I was under the impression that the FCC set it up the way it is without adjacent NTSC channels since they would warm each others signlas years ago?


----------



## Makenup (Sep 15, 2003)

Hello.
I have a Phillips Direct TV/Tivo series 2 unit.
I want to upgrade to High Def - but I am so confused.
I don't want Direct TV's DVR - I want Tivo!
Soemone suggested that I get a HR10-250 DirecTV with TiVo - but then I read somewhere that it will not work in a year or so when Direct TV changes something over???? Is that true? That's no good! What are my options?
Do I need to switch to cable to get what I want?
I am on Long Island NY. How is that cable compared to Direct TV?
Anyone? Help!!!!!!
Thanks!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

check out the series3 forum here. 

Series3 tivo's connect to cable using cablecards.

I assume you have cablevision- there are threads there specific to them. 

You'll get more answers about the speicifcs of cablevision in those forums.

Be prepared for sticker shock- while the HD DVR's from Directv are heavily subsidized that's not the case with the S3 tivo's. MSRP is 800. Street price from an internet vendor or with a coupon to a big box is maybe a hundred off that if you are lucky.

You can get an HR10 for a lot less- and it will continue to work with the CURRENT directv lineup. You will be able to get the 4 main NY networks and maybe an occasional yankee or nets game on YES network in HD. You might be able to pick up the PBS and cw(11) and my network (channel 9) stations with an antenna. Likely cablevision carries all the locals plus all the HD RSN's not just sporadic YES network.

But you'll likley get locked into a 2 year commitment with Directv- so you will be stuck with those current channels for 2 years with no chance of gettign anythign new.


----------



## Makenup (Sep 15, 2003)

You mean the movie channels on Direct TV are not HD (HBO, Showtime, etc?)
Sounds like I'll get more with cable!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

SOME of the movie channels CURRENTLY are HD (sorry I wasn't clear- they also have a small package of HD channels like discovery, hd net, espn, etc)

HBO and Showtime if I recall. No starz or cinemax (which likely are HD on cable).

If you want the most HD WITH TiVo than cablevision likely will give it to you- you'll probably get everythign Directv currently has plus INHD 1&2 - maybe another couple nation HD channels. Twice the move channels in HD (4 vs 2) and all 3/4 NYC RSN's in HD all the time instead of an occasional HD YES Network on Directv.

it will cost you though...

If you are serious about switchign to cable then check the S3 forum and give serious consideration to getting triple play. WIthout Triple play Cable TV seems to be a LOT more then Directv. But if you get the triple play bundle you can get in the ballpark or tv+dsl+phone seperatly. 

In my case- I am pretty lucky- I save about $10 a month by getting triple play form my cable company vs the other way (not inlcuding first year discount) . New cable subs usually can get $50 or more off a month on the first 12 months of the bundle so that will just about pay for a tivo Series3. Cablevision advertises $99 for the bundle if I recall for first 12 months.


----------



## Makenup (Sep 15, 2003)

Thanks for all of your advise. 
I will have to look into the cable cause I really want to stay with Tivo and the whole point of the upgrade is to have HD. Sounds like cable has much more HD. 
So it sounds like series 3 and cable, just might be the way to go. 
I already have them for my broadband - and if I add the phone - there is my triple play. 
Thanks again!


----------

