New Starz Lineup

[drjdan]

When is the Team Summit? Will it be reported on this site?

 

[Slamminc11]

When is the Team Summit? Will it be reported on this site?

June 8-11 in Denver, Colorado

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Speak for yourself. I am one of A LOT of people who do NOT yet have an HD television and am therefore happy about the new channel. You must realize and accept that you are still very much in the minority of households who DO have HD. Sorry!

You are right a lot of people do not have HD; but once you do have HD, you never really want to watch anything in SD. Even HD-lite blows away everything in SD. Even my 8 year old tends to watch the lousy cartoons on Animania rather than one of the SD channels. (Fine with me, no commercials on anamania!).

I so wish E* would enable us to buy just HD, including a REAL HD movies package (HBO, STARZ, SHO, CINEMAX) and skip the SD, and then just a la carte the few SD channels I watch, like Sci Fi.

 

[Purogamer]

Of course Team Summit will be covered here...If you want the real good coverage, you'd be wise to make a donation and check the pub when Team Summit is taking place...Scott never disappoints with the rumors...

I think SD wouldn't be so bad if you didn't turn on HBO and see Batman Begins or any other new movie filling the screen...How about forced widescreen, it's 2006 for christ's sake...Last time Starz was in free preview I almost threw up trying to watch armageddon, and it had nothing to do with the acting...

 

[Tom Bombadil]

SD wouldn't be so bad at all, if it was given adequate bandwidth.

All of the SD channels could approach DVD quality if that sold subscriptions. However it didn't in SD-land, having more channels sold subscriptions.

 

[iceondsom]

The latest word remains that DISH will launch Starz HD on May 31st too.

 

[jerryez]

I do not consider three million Dish subscribers that have HD a very small minority out of 12 millon total Dish subscribers.

 

[BlackHitachi]

I do not consider three million Dish subscribers that have HD a very small minority out of 12 millon total Dish subscribers.

DITTO and our numbers are growing every day!!

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I do not consider three million Dish subscribers that have HD a very small minority out of 12 millon total Dish subscribers.

I don't think they have nearly that many HD subs. I saw that number in some article, but I think it was referring to the total number of people in households that owned HD capable TVs and sub'ed to Dish. If so, then it wasn't the number of subs and many of these people had HDTVs and weren't sub'ing to Dish HD.

Other numbers I've seen have pegged the number of Dish HD subs at around 500K-600K. This number seems to be more consistent with the number of 211 and 622 receivers that were made to meet the MPEG4 changeover.

Consider that the demand for 622s was seemingly met, there is no backlog for those receivers. And yet the numbers suggest that maybe only 25,000-30,000 have been manufactured so far. Dish was hoping to ship 40,000 by sometime this spring, I don't think they've hit that number yet. Could be wrong.

Now nowhere near everyone has converted yet. However if there were 3,000,000 HD subs with HDTVs, they should have seen far greater demand for both 211s and 622s than what we've seen so far.

 

[Juan]

I don't think they have nearly that many HD subs. I saw that number in some article, but I think it was referring to the total number of people in households that owned HD capable TVs and sub'ed to Dish. If so, then it wasn't the number of subs and many of these people had HDTVs and weren't sub'ing to Dish HD.

Other numbers I've seen have pegged the number of Dish HD subs at around 500K-600K. This number seems to be more consistent with the number of 211 and 622 receivers that were made to meet the MPEG4 changeover.

Consider that the demand for 622s was seemingly met, there is no backlog for those receivers. And yet the numbers suggest that maybe only 25,000-30,000 have been manufactured so far. Dish was hoping to ship 40,000 by sometime this spring, I don't think they've hit that number yet. Could be wrong.

Now nowhere near everyone has converted yet. However if there were 3,000,000 HD subs with HDTVs, they should have seen far greater demand for both 211s and 622s than what we've seen so far.

what about all the people that have 811's and 600's and 942's and 921's that are awaiting a better deal

 

[M Sparks]

SD wouldn't be so bad at all, if it was given adequate bandwidth.

All of the SD channels could approach DVD quality if that sold subscriptions. However it didn't in SD-land, having more channels sold subscriptions.

EXACTLY! And that's why I don't get the people who complain about HD-Lite ONLY because it's being downrezzed. (There are other reasons to complain.) EVERYTHING on DBS has had it's quality reduced for a long LONG time. DBS is a trade off. If I had access to a good digital cable system, there's no way I would have DISH. But I don't have that option.

The real irony is the people who want EVERY HD channel, but complain about the quality.

 

[M Sparks]

You are right a lot of people do not have HD; but once you do have HD, you never really want to watch anything in SD.

Yes, everyone feels exactly the same as you.

For me, the novelty of HD wore off in a few weeks. Good programming is more important to me than HD vs SD.

Now it's true that if I see something good coming on, say, HBO 2, I'll first scan through the HBO HD schedule to see if it's coming up in the next week and set the DVR rather than watch it now. But the concept of not watching something entertaining or informative just because it's in SD is absurd to me. If you feel that way, fine. But stop pretending to speak for everyone.

 

[johnjudy]

My feelings exactly, scifi is one of my favorites, just usa and other channels. Jusy because it isnt in hd will not stop me from watching a good program. there are channels in hd I never watch, but thats my preferrance.

 

[johnjudy]

Sorry for some of the spelling in advance.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

EXACTLY! And that's why I don't get the people who complain about HD-Lite ONLY because it's being downrezzed. (There are other reasons to complain.) EVERYTHING on DBS has had it's quality reduced for a long LONG time. DBS is a trade off. If I had access to a good digital cable system, there's no way I would have DISH. But I don't have that option.

The real irony is the people who want EVERY HD channel, but complain about the quality.

I complained about SD-lite for a long time, but gave up the ghost there a few years ago. No use wasting time beating that dead horse.

So I've seen HD as the new battleground. HD is all about high quality, wherein SD never was. People are paying big money for high-res TV sets. The newer HDTVs continue to get better and better. Now if only the owners of those sets demand the source material be equal to their TV's capabilities, we may have a chance to get true, high-bitrate HD programs.

But so many HDTVs owners are willing to play the same game as SD, probably many of the same people involved. My HD-lite is good enough, it's a lot better than SD, therefore I am willing to accept it, and I will even be happy about it if I get more channels.

If too many E* and D* subs adopt this attitude, then DBS HD quality will erode over time, just like SD did.

But at least it isn't going to happen without me screaming about it!!!

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'll add that my prediction is that HD quality will erode over time. Due to the following factors:

A) As HDTV goes mainstream, the late adopters will not be as demanding on quality as the early adopters. They will accept HD-lite as great TV.

B) As more and more channels go HD, including more and more HD LiLs, there will be great pressure on how many transponders are available for HD. Squeezing more channels on each TP is far cheaper than putting up new satellites

C) Once again the general public will demand and prioritize more HD channels over high quality HD channels. The providers offering the most HD channels will win significant marketshare.

All of these lead to down-rezzing and bit-starving HD in order to put up more channels using fewer transponders & satellites, while maximizing the number of subscribers and income.

The number of HD subs who scream about quality will become an increasingly small portion of the HD market. These will eventually have to accept that common providers are going to broadcast in various forms of HD-lite (which I think will get worse than it is now) while they obtain true HD from sources like HD DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD, etc..

It is my opinion that any chance to head this off requires that people demand true HD NOW! As soon as the downgrading begins, we must complain en masse. For once a company heads down this road, while encountering minimum resistance along with outright acceptance, then it is a certainty that it will only get worse.

 

[cebbigh]

Of course Team Summit will be covered here...If you want the real good coverage, you'd be wise to make a donation and check the pub when Team Summit is taking place...Scott never disappoints with the rumors...

I think SD wouldn't be so bad if you didn't turn on HBO and see Batman Begins or any other new movie filling the screen...How about forced widescreen, it's 2006 for christ's sake...Last time Starz was in free preview I almost threw up trying to watch armageddon, and it had nothing to do with the acting...

Forced widescreen on HBO, Starz, etc. sounds good to me. I don't mind SD that much before it gets stretched out to fill the screen. And the only reason I do that is to avoid burn in.

 

[Dishnetisforme]

I'm glad Starz!! Comedy is coming to Dish.I don't have HD yet so any new SD channels are welcome for me.

 

[waltinvt]

The number of HD subs who scream about quality will become an increasingly small portion of the HD market. These will eventually have to accept that common providers are going to broadcast in various forms of HD-lite (which I think will get worse than it is now) while they obtain true HD from sources like HD DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD, etc.

Forced widescreen on HBO, Starz, etc. sounds good to me. I don't mind SD that much before it gets stretched out to fill the screen. And the only reason I do that is to avoid burn in.

The above remarks are interresting.

The Home Video industry generates billions of $$ every year. It's been that way for two reasons:

1. Other than the theater, you get to see it on home video first.
2. It's always been a better video & sound quality experience.

Then along comes HD and soon after, HD DVRs. It's just a matter of time before external HDDs are commonplace and you can start building an archive of hit movies that, except for special features, exceeds the quality of DVD, VOD and PPV.

Believe me, with that kind of money at stake, there was never any chance that you're normal, everyday, subscription based, dvr-able, HD was ever going to be allowed to remain better quality than the stuff they want you to pay extra for.

Either Video had to get better (immediatly) or they had to quickly tone down the quality of what you could get from cable and satellite. We know which they did.

The biggest chunk of up-front production costs currently come from video companys in exchange for first marketing rights within a certain time frame after first run theater showings. We're talking many, many millions of $$$ here.

Usually within 6 months after theater run movies start becoming available on dvd, followed soon after by PPV and then a while later Starz will get them, followed by the rest of the premium movie channels.

If we have the ability to see and record HD versions of a movies, which could (should) currently be much better than normal dvd quality, that has to have some kind of impact on home video sales and that will not be allowed.

So you can cry all you want but HD Lite is not going away until home video catchs up and HD DVDs become as common (and as relativly expensive) as current dvds.