# FINALLY Directv lays out HD Plans for 2006/2007



## DVRaholic (Mar 28, 2004)

Finally Directv has put on paper thier HD plans for the future

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/12/127160/FINALSlidesInvestorDay2-22-06.pdf

Its about Time!!!


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

See http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=288404 for previous post about this. The link in post #3 has been removed, because of inappropriate replies in that thread. But, the link in the first post is valid.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

DVRaholic said:


> Finally Directv has put on paper thier HD plans for the future


And, as the Baron Harkonnen announced his plans for the Fremen, "Squeeze"

So divorced from any grasp of reality or any of the technological and market forces in play that I thought at first it was a hoax. And I love it when companies in death-throes start to identify their higher income customers as sheep to be fleeced. Increase the margins on the already highest margin products. Throw us a few baubles. Like we got there by being stupid. The presentation was fatuous.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

Pretty presentation but it still doesnt make my PQ any better D:


----------



## srt (Jan 27, 2006)

After reading the presentation, I wondered if I would have spent my time better watching Dancing with the Stars.
So, with the launch of another satellite or two, d* will increase their ability to deliver more nat'l hd. But not until (mid?) 2007. It was nice to see that more cs will be handled stateside, I view he first level as an annoying waste of time.
I don't look at it as being a sheep to be fleeced, D* has the potential to offer a service that I truly want. We have crummy cable, and no chance of hd ota, therefore it will be D* or their prime competitor, or cable if they upgrade locally.
I keep in mind D* is a business that wants to make profit, as customers we fit into that equasion. What I do not see is their need to increase rates any time soon. I got lost reviewing their pages on new boxes for users as I won't be leasing (own + prot.plan).
In closing, I wonder how many hearts I have by my name on their screen. I do not purchase the premiums besides hd, and have not been particularly happy with my brief association with D*, in view of a simple request to have my billing cycle changed (I offered to pay ahead to accomodate the request).
I guess I will find out in 20 months.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

I only went through 10 pages and had enough; flipped off the monitor and tuned into Dancing w/ the stars... (Dont tell my friends). D:


----------



## srt (Jan 27, 2006)

The whip is out there watching it right now. She said that I better not tell anyone that she actually called in votes


----------



## osultan (Dec 1, 2003)

Interesting they are rolling out another dish that looks like it will be smaller than the current behemoth....


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

osultan said:


> Interesting they are rolling out another dish that looks like it will be smaller than the current behemoth....


Equally interesting are their "Signal Distribution Innovations". One of which is a "Frequency Translation Module" which uses a single wire from the dish. It's about time!


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

Interesting plan, but I havven't seen much evidence that they can actually deliver, especially given all their hi-tech visions for the home. Note one chart that shows channel capacity rollout... cable and Dish both leave them in the dust until about 2008.

Speaking of the other D, I came very close to jumping ship this weekend. Their new HD-DVR looks very nice, although it isn't Tivo. It's rea, though, it's MPEG-4 already, and has gotten some good reviews. But, since DTV is dropping Tivo, I don't see any particular reason to stay with them. I suppose I'll wait until my HR10 dies (yet again), and then switch.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

wje said:


> Note one chart that shows channel capacity rollout... cable and Dish both leave them in the dust until about 2008.
> 
> .


Note that capacity for 100+ HD nationals is useless unless there ARE 100+ HD channels. It's like buying a lamborghini when you never get out of manhattan! So talking about capacity is really not meaningfull until the networks themselves spend the millions to upgrade their equipment. I know someone posted the HD channels somewhere, but I forget where. I think there are truly only maybe what, 20-25 national Hd channels now? (please post list if you find it as I'm sure everyone here is interested)

So except for the 5 or so national channels that directv 'choses' not to give us, beyond that isn't their fault at all.

As an aside, i follow the philly comcast thread and all I hear about them whining is they want their tnt hd etc. That means at least locally, their cable systems must be at/near max. capacity also. So it's no directv thing exclusively.


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

newsposter said:


> So except for the 5 or so national channels that directv 'choses' not to give us, beyond that isn't their fault at all.


Of course, you're correct about available content. My point was really that DTV looks to be lagging behind, regardless of their stated plans. It seems they are being more reactive than proactive. I'm sure their competition isn't just sitting around, and are already ahead in some important ways. When the phone companies get fiber-to-the-premises rolled out, I'm not sure there will be a future for ANY satellite provider.


----------



## CPD (Mar 10, 2003)

Does anyone know which markets are covered under "36 local markets covering 58% of the country in June"? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that they aren't necessarily going along with the exact market size.

Thanks in advance,
Chris


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

wje said:


> Of course, you're correct about available content. My point was really that DTV looks to be lagging behind, regardless of their stated plans. It seems they are being more reactive than proactive. I'm sure their competition isn't just sitting around, and are already ahead in some important ways. When the phone companies get fiber-to-the-premises rolled out, I'm not sure there will be a future for ANY satellite provider.


Fiber to premises...
Heck... my telco couldn't even plan correctly to provide DSL to the new 1,700 homes that have gone up in the last 4 years in my subdivision and the one accross the street.... There are approximatley 3 more subdivisions with at least another 1,000 homes...

And yet no plans to build anything new from a basic POTS point of view.

Fiber to premise has a LONG LONG LONG way to go, before it makes even a dent in cable-co and SAT numbers.

(I am not disagreeing with the technology... it is just that Fiber is at it's infancy)


----------



## naldoron (Nov 29, 2003)

CPD said:


> Does anyone know which markets are covered under "36 local markets covering 58% of the country in June"? I thought I remembered reading somewhere that they aren't necessarily going along with the exact market size.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Chris


SEE the folllowing link

http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=820591&highlight=


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> Fiber to premises...
> Heck... my telco couldn't even plan correctly to provide DSL to the new 1,700 homes that have gone up in the last 4 years in my subdivision and the one accross the street....
> (I am not disagreeing with the technology... it is just that Fiber is at it's infancy)


It's being rolled out here (New Hampshire). A number of people at work have it, and love it. It will certainly take quite a while to roll out everywhere, though. It's a complicated installation, too. But all that bandwidth! Plus, the current video delivery strategy for fiber is basically that of cable; this means that cablecard Tivos are a possibility.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Don't get me wrong... I understand that Fiber is the "next great" technology.

However... there are still a MASSIVE amount of areas that still cable lines that are too old to even run current broadband. Massive bandwith is only good, if you can get it...

IIRC DirecTV is also planning (or is) offerring their "signal" via Fiber as well.
(I think it was a Verizon join thing.... I could be wrong though)


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> IIRC DirecTV is also planning (or is) offerring their "signal" via Fiber as well.
> (I think it was a Verizon join thing.... I could be wrong though)


I've heard some rumors of that; it makes some sense. Verizon is already a DTV reseller. So, maybe down the road, DTV just becomes a content distributor? BTW, Verizon is the one providing fiber service here, under the name 'FIOS', or fiber-optic service. Wonder how long it took their marketing geniuses to come up with that one.

Different topic ... someone asked where to find the rollout schedule and DMAs... try dbstalk.com, there's a summary there.


----------



## Inertia (Feb 28, 2005)

I just want to know how many hearts I have in my customer file. I should have asked the last time I talked to them on the phone!


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

Inertia said:


> I just want to know how many hearts I have in my customer file. I should have asked the last time I talked to them on the phone!


I'm curious to know why customers can only get 1, 3 or 5 hearts (see page 79). What's wrong with 2 or 4 hearts? Couldn't they just have used 1, 2 or 3 hearts if they wanted three levels? (To which, they would undoubtedly reply: "but ... this one goes to 5.")


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Bananfish said:


> I'm curious to know why customers can only get 1, 3 or 5 hearts (see page 79). What's wrong with 2 or 4 hearts? Couldn't they just have used 1, 2 or 3 hearts if they wanted three levels? (To which, they would undoubtedly reply: "but ... this one goes to 5.")


my guess is quickness. You can easily see 1 3 5 but to try to count 2 or 4 may confuse some csrs and take extra seconds to evaluate the call. See the per call cost data they list. They really want to shrink that down



Inertia said:


> I just want to know how many hearts I have in my customer file. I should have asked the last time I talked to them on the phone!


Well we know at least what one persons heart rating is (don't ask)


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I know my heart rating. I'm a 5! I found out when on the phone with tech the other day.

I dont care if they offer HD locals, I can get them in my area with the antenna. I want more HD content for the major networks like TBS, USA, SCIFI, and where the heck is Starz HD!?

And I want my SD channels to actually be viewable on my HDTV. They should at least bump them all to 480p anamorphic IMHO. Right now they look like junk.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rkester said:


> I dont care if they offer HD locals, I can get them in my area with the antenna. I want more HD content for the major networks like TBS, USA, SCIFI, and where the heck is Starz HD!?
> 
> And I want my SD channels to actually be viewable on my HDTV. They should at least bump them all to 480p anamorphic IMHO. Right now they look like junk.


And IIRC... StarzHD is the only one that actually exists out of your lists. So how can DirecTV offer something that doesn't exist?

And the SD channels... in anamorphic 480p.... What do they do with the other 10 million or so customers that don't have an HDTV or a reciever that will down grade it to 480i?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Oh sure, bash my rant all to heck with your sensible counterpoints. 

Seriously though, I don't see why they cannot at the very least upgrade the quality of the SD channels. Even if its not 16:9, just make it look better, less compression or better quality compressoin. Something. Anything.

I refuse to watch SD anymore unless I absolutely have no choice, and I only watch the shows my tivo has recorded. I pretty much only watch DTVs HD or local HD, and DVDs... and have since before xmas of 05. THat is how bad the SD channels look to me on my HDTV. And I know that if I see that poor quality then others must too.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ebonovic said:


> And IIRC... StarzHD is the only one that actually exists out of your lists. So how can DirecTV offer something that doesn't exist?


They could assign a channel number and put up a graphic: "SciFi HD goes here", "Shop at Home HD goes here", "America's Store HD goes here", "HSN HD goes here", "ShopNBC HD goes here" and so forth...


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> And the SD channels... in anamorphic 480p.... What do they do with the other 10 million or so customers that don't have an HDTV or a reciever that will down grade it to 480i?


I see it as a perfect opportunity for DTV to push the new Leasing options to customers. Make all new boxes handle HD content and conversion (maybe just not put in HDMI/DVI outputs or something to keep costs down and to encourage customers ot upgrade to pricier boxes with digital outputs) and get them into homes leased for very cheap.

A 16:9 signal anamorphically squeezed into the 4:3 format structure even at current compression ratios would be no different in data size than current 4:3 content since its the same exact area of pixels right? So the only thing needed would be to turn it into letterbox for the 4:3 tvs and offer zooming for people who are are not willing to deal with letterboxing. They'd see the same picture almost as before just with better options for HDTVs and widescreen/edtvs.

This seems so simple to me. Maybe its not but thats why Im not running DTV.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Any speculation on what the useful purpose of the LCD on the front of the unit on page 35 is?

I dont see why anyone would want or need that since they will be watching thru a TV and not off the unit itself, correct?


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

wje said:


> When the phone companies get fiber-to-the-premises rolled out, I'm not sure there will be a future for ANY satellite provider.


Do you have any idea how much of the country is still 'rural' and will never see fiber (or any other provider) in any of our lifetimes? There will be a market for satellite for many many years to come.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

Mark Lopez said:


> Do you have any idea how much of the country is still 'rural' and will never see fiber (or any other provider) in any of our lifetimes? There will be a market for satellite for many many years to come.


i agree, you are gonna have to pretty much be able to see a high rise to get fiber. at the very least be on city water and such to have access. if you prefer the peace and quiet of no neighbors but enjoy television you are stuck with D* or E*.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rkester said:


> Any speculation on what the useful purpose of the LCD on the front of the unit on page 35 is?
> 
> I dont see why anyone would want or need that since they will be watching thru a TV and not off the unit itself, correct?


It is actually fairly common in larger home theater setups, where the display unit is NOT in the same room as the equipment..

Usually that small display is used to see the output bound video source. It isn't intended for "constant" usage.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

rkester said:


> I see it as a perfect opportunity for DTV to push the new Leasing options to customers. Make all new boxes handle HD content and conversion (maybe just not put in HDMI/DVI outputs or something to keep costs down and to encourage customers ot upgrade to pricier boxes with digital outputs) and get them into homes leased for very cheap.
> 
> .


I dont understand this. Do you mean make a box like the HR10 (which of course does handle HD) but not include hdmi/component?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> It is actually fairly common in larger home theater setups, where the display unit is NOT in the same room as the equipment..


Ah, ok, makes sense! It looked like a rack mount thing but I didnt put that together with the whole super-rich-guy-home-theatre-thing-with-equipment-in-another-room deal. I'm a normal person who has eevreything in the same room as the TV... and my branes been broken lately anyhoo.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

newsposter said:


> I dont understand this. Do you mean make a box like the HR10 (which of course does handle HD) but not include hdmi/component?


Yes. A HD DTV box (not DVR) that is essentially designed for the avg non=HD household, capable of doing RCA and S-Video for the masses with 4:3 tvs and such. I figure if you eliminate the HDMI/DVI stuff, it will reduce the cost making it similar in cost to DTV to a regular SD settop box. And therefore could replace the regular boxes.

Almost all the settops already do digital optical, so they'd still get that digital sound like the HD customers. just a picture thjey can use on their tvs so they arent left out.

This assumes that the HD chanels will not work on regular SD boxes. (I could see the HDHBO on its 70s channel on my regular settop box but none of the other HD channels last night so not sure on that) If they would, just pipe the HD to everyone's SD boxes and let it convert to LBX (or zooming for the fickle out of touch folks who think lbx is bad) for the masses.

According to the pdf slideshow, the cost to DTV for a SD-DVR is more than the standard non-DVR HD box, so I think it would be quite feasible.

But, like Ive said, I dont run things, nor do I know all the facts and figures from their perspective. However, it seems to make sense to me that this would work and would bring many people upwards and onwards.

This all of course assumes that DTV cares about its customer base and quality of signal. Which currently I'm not sure they do.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

They do care...as long as you do it their way. They are hoping the lack of Tivo is made up by the 'goodies' laid out in the pdf. If they deliver, new subs wont know the difference. Just us dinosaurs.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I guess if you had never used a tivo before then their DVR might be fine, it would be a step above no DVR.

Im more concerned about the SD content, the lack of any decent superstations in HD, and the general attitude they have towards forcing other dvr's like the tivo out of the picture completely.


----------



## CJLinst (Mar 13, 2005)

rkester said:


> Seriously though, I don't see why they cannot at the very least upgrade the quality of the SD channels. Even if its not 16:9, just make it look better, less compression or better quality compressoin. Something. Anything.
> 
> I refuse to watch SD anymore unless I absolutely have no choice, and I only watch the shows my tivo has recorded. I pretty much only watch DTVs HD or local HD, and DVDs... and have since before xmas of 05. THat is how bad the SD channels look to me on my HDTV. And I know that if I see that poor quality then others must too.


I just wish my display had a "shrink" mode. It has umpteen zoom and stretch modes that I don't use. It'd be nice to have one that shrank a 480 line source to use, say, 480 lines of the display without changing the aspect.

I really don't have any complants about the DTV PQ when I watch on my 20" CRT. Can't stand it on my 43" DLP. Sometimes it feels like I'm watching a low-res internet stream.


----------



## MeCurious (Feb 24, 2006)

CJLinst said:


> I just wish my display had a "shrink" mode. It has umpteen zoom and stretch modes that I don't use. It'd be nice to have one that shrank a 480 line source to use, say, 480 lines of the display without changing the aspect.
> 
> I really don't have any complants about the DTV PQ when I watch on my 20" CRT. Can't stand it on my 43" DLP. Sometimes it feels like I'm watching a low-res internet stream.


That maybe the point. I watch sd on my 27" tv and the picture looks good. Or at least passable on most shows. But if I look at the same picture on my 50" SONY SXRD, it looks terrible. From Directv's point of view, this maybe an acceptable compromise. They may have crunched some numbers and decided the number of people is small who have fancy HDTVs. They could keep the masses happy easily with the quality of the picture. They know they run the risk of losing people who see the true quality of the picture on a large screen. But that may be just 20% of their viewers. Maybe 5% of those will leave becasue of the picture. That might be acceptable to them.


----------

