150 HD Channels???

[Octavio]

I received a magazine today with a DTV ad that states that "soon DTV will have over 150 channels in HD"
Are these channels going to be on the Mpeg4 format? Anybody knows anything about it?
It will be nice if I could keep my HR10 and use it with this new programing.

[A J Ricaud]

Are these channels going to be on the Mpeg4 format? It will be nice if I could keep my HR10 and use it with this new programing.

MPEG-4 only; sorry, not for HR10-250

[HomieG]

I received a magazine today with a DTV ad that states that "soon DTV will have over 150 channels in HD"
Are these channels going to be on the Mpeg4 format? Anybody knows anything about it?
It will be nice if I could keep my HR10 and use it with this new programing.

Even coupled with your own locals in HD, I'm not quite sure there is HD content available from a collective 150 providers. 'Course they did say soon, and that could mean 10 years...

[moonman]

When D* launches Direct10&11(late next summer), They will have the Capacity to add up to 150 National MPEG4 channels....they have not suggested that
they WILL add that many AFAIK.

[TyroneShoes]

They may have not suggested that they will have 150 HD channels, but that is most certainly what they are trying to get us to fall for. Selling the sizzle to sell the steak usually works best when there is an actual steak to go with the sizzle.

DISH has 30 HD channels (which you must pay through the nose for), and there are probably no more than another 4 or 5 that they don't carry. I have only heard of 3 or 4 that are planned for 2007, and those are third-line cable channels, not big nets like USA or SCIFI or FX. Plus there's not much HD content worth watching on most HD channels, and many of them only carry HD a fraction of the time.

I would not expect 150 HD channels of any significance from any vendor before at least 2010. Anything new needs a killer app, such as Milton Berle was the killer app for B&W television and Howard Stern is the killer app for satellite radio. I think the only thing that could be the killer app for HD would be HD VOD with a huge movie and TV show library, and who knows how many of us might even live long enough to see that?

I'm just happy that about 90% of what I want to watch is in HD, and 95% of that is available OTA, which makes the HR10 a pretty good choice.

[cheer]

I think the only thing that could be the killer app for HD would be HD VOD with a huge movie and TV show library, and who knows how many of us might even live long enough to see that?

I'm just happy that about 90% of what I want to watch is in HD, and 95% of that is available OTA, which makes the HR10 a pretty good choice.
I couldn't agree more. The killer app for me just to go HD at all was HD OTA network programming -- the vast majority of what my wife and I watch is on the major nets.

Part of the problem ultimately will be that any attempt to provide what TyroneShoes describes (a huge library of HD VOD) is going to be staunchly resisted by the content providers.

"How can this be?" I hear you ask. "Wouldn't they make money with this?" Sure. As they have done with iTunes, and DVD, and videotape before that. They've also resisted and/or restricted each one, slowing the growth.

Let me give you a more recent example. IPTV is starting to pop up here and there from major providers. The largest implementation that we'll see over the next 12 months is AT&T's "U-Verse" offering, which will appear in AT&T's local service territory (currently 13 states, eventually will spread to another nine after the BellSouth merger is complete). AT&T plans to be in several major markets rather soon.

Unlike FIOS or cable, this is a true IPTV implementation. So instead of having all 100 or 200 or whatever channels of content beaming into your house, you just have what you're watching. This means AT&T can offer 2000 channels if it wants (and if they exist) without upgrading bandwidth at the edge (the most expensive part of the network to upgrade). All well and good, right?

But in order to roll out fast (they figure to be available to more homes than FIOS within a few months or so), the last mile is going to be copper in most places. Using VDSL+ and pair bonding, they expect to see over 50 megabit/sec bandwidth available, and with newer compression methods will increase the number of simultaneous streams that can pass into the house. Even so...with satellite/OTA right now I can record 8 shows at once. I could easily increase that. In fact I'm probably going to build a myth box one of these days with a stack of OTA tuners.

U-Verse can't do that. The bandwidth just isn't there. But this puzzled me anyway. As a network engineer, it seems silly to me to deliver all of that to the edge. Why not just use server farms in regional (or even local) data centers? If I set something to record from my U-Verse STB, why not have that just happen back at the data center? Then when I want to watch it, it can stream it to me. If they do that, then the bandwidth issue isn't such a big deal anymore, because there are only so many streams I can watch at any one time. So AT&T's implementation seemed, well, less than optimal.

Well, it turns out AT&T wanted to do it exactly as I describe. The content providers/copyright holders raised a ruckus. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. I'm sure there's some overly-complicated legal issue with how licensing of content works, but still, I am flummoxed by the lack of flexibility and vision that the content industry displays, time and time again.

If I ran a studio or some other kind of content provider, the number one thing on my list right now would be to figure out all the different ways I could get my crap out there. I'd be spending real money trying to make what TS described above a reality, right now. I'd want my movies or whatever available on DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, every VOD satellite/cable system, PSP, iPod, etc. I'd want content downloadable to PCs. And sure, I'd want to charge for all of this -- that's the idea. Would I need DRM? Probably...but here's the thing. One of the main reasons DRM annoys people (apart from the principle of it all) is that it limits what you can do with the content you purchase. I can't play my iTunes DRM'd files via my Xbox, or I can't watch my Amazon Unbox video purchase on my iPod, or whatever. The next thing that makes people hate it is that in many/most cases it's as expensive as buying a DVD. And while DVDs have DRM, it's mild DRM: I can take my DVD anywhere, play it on my laptop, or my portable DVD player, or at the DVD player at the hotel I'm staying at.

Some folks pirate to save money and/or get free content. But a lot of folks do it because it's the only way to use the content the way they want. Plenty of people stopped downloading music illegally when iTunes or alternatives came along and allowed individual song purchases for under a buck. (And again, the RIAA hated the whole scheme, but they're gladly cashing the checks now.) In other words...people will put up with DRM, if it's not completely horrible and if they can still do what they want with the content. But the real message is that you don't fight piracy with technology; you fight it with economics.

Thinking on this (apologies if I'm rambling; this is slightly stream-of-consciousness and I'm on very little sleep and a couple of Vicodin), there are two parts to the money you pay when you acquire content: licensing the actual content, and paying for the delivery. Apple takes a (small) cut of iTunes sales to pay for the service itself, and the rest goes to the provider.

So bear with me on this. First, if I were going to make my content available in a DRM'd fashion via download, it would have to be cheaper than buying physical media. You'd have to be insane to buy a downloaded DRM'd movie for $20 if Amazon's got the DVD (with extras, etc.) for $14.

Next...I'd try to work out some kind of premium purchase option that I'd call a Global License. (Or maybe I wouldn't. Marketing can figure out the name.) Say you buy Apocalypse Now on DVD. Maybe for an extra payment, you could get this premium license that basically says, "You've licensed this movie. Since we're insisting that you license content (as opposed to purchasing it), then why should you keep licensing it multiple times? If you want it in another format, you have to pay for the delivery, but not for the license again." That's not as clear as I'd like it, but the gist is: once you license the movie, you shouldn't get double-dipped to get it on your personal video player, and your PSP, and your PC, and...etc. If you want new physical media, or if you want to download it, a nominal charge to cover the distribution is fine. Saw the movie in the theater? Send your ticket stub in for a rebate off the DVD. And so on.

Obviously there are logistical issues. How do you track the licenses? (Similar to software keys, would be my answer, but the devil's in the details.) Does the license cover "Apocalypse Now Redux?" What about "Director's cuts?"

The mistake that content providers make, IMO, is the never-ending quest for double-dipping. Yes, this can provide extra revenue streams. But it's short-term thinking, and it pisses off the customer base. It's a fairly simple business principle that one can often greatly increase revenue (and profit) by decreasing prices.

And this industry ought to know this, if it pays any attention to its own history as all. Those of you old enough to remember when movies first started being available on video tape will also remember how expensive they were. My father bought a copy of Star Wars for my sister on VHS for $90, and that was considered a decent price as I think it was originally over $100. Movies trickled out slowly, and purchases were slow too. (How much of a movie library could most people afford? The only people I knew who bought more than one or two were wealthy.)

Then, Paramount decided to try an experiment. They decided to release Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on video for the unbelievable-insane price of $39.99. My father and I were stunned at this development. At $40, my father insisted on purchasing it, even though he'd never watch it himself. (He knew I would, but that wasn't even the point...he felt it was important to encourage this lower-cost trend.)

The tape sold unbelievably well, and in very short order other movies (and other studios) hit that price point, and lower. In fact, if memory serves $39.99 didn't last long; $29.99 became the new norm, and it's dropped from there.

All of this rambling has a point, believe it or not. Make the price low and fair, and make the content easily available, and it will sell, sell, sell. Some studio, sooner or later, is going to get in front of Jack Valenti and eventually convince him that both the studio and the MPAA can make a crazy amount of money by putting together what TS described. Price the movies/etc. right, and the dollars will roll in. And we will win too, because if all those movies are there on demand, all the time, we won't need to buy them and store them ourselves. (Of course, we still should be able to if we wish.)

Well...ok, so all of that wasn't as coherent as I'd like. But I think you get the idea. TS asks how many of us will live to see that library, and the answer ought to be "all of us." If content providers spent less time thinking about how systems like that would screw up their double-dipping or cannibalize their other business lines, and more time thinking about the new revenue stream this could create, it could be done in short order. If I were running a studio, I'd have a team of people working this out Right Now.

[texasbrit]

They may have not suggested that they will have 150 HD channels, but that is most certainly what they are trying to get us to fall for. Selling the sizzle to sell the steak usually works best when there is an actual steak to go with the sizzle.

DISH has 30 HD channels (which you must pay through the nose for), and there are probably no more than another 4 or 5 that they don't carry. I have only heard of 3 or 4 that are planned for 2007, and those are third-line cable channels, not big nets like USA or SCIFI or FX. Plus there's not much HD content worth watching on most HD channels, and many of them only carry HD a fraction of the time.

I would not expect 150 HD channels of any significance from any vendor before at least 2010. Anything new needs a killer app, such as Milton Berle was the killer app for B&W television and Howard Stern is the killer app for satellite radio. I think the only thing that could be the killer app for HD would be HD VOD with a huge movie and TV show library, and who knows how many of us might even live long enough to see that?

I'm just happy that about 90% of what I want to watch is in HD, and 95% of that is available OTA, which makes the HR10 a pretty good choice.

Some DirecTV insiders suggest that there will be about 40 national MPEG-4 HD channels next year. Some of them are likely to be HD sports channels like NESN - no idea what the others will be.

We are also likely to see the MPEG-2 HD channels move to MPEG-4 which means we will no longer be able to receive them on the HR10s. For those people whose viewing is mainly OTA that won't be a problem. It will also release some MPEG-2 bandwidth which hopefully (!!) will be used to improve the quality of some of the SD channels.

[rifleman69]

Some DirecTV insiders suggest that there will be about 40 national MPEG-4 HD channels next year. Some of them are likely to be HD sports channels like NESN - no idea what the others will be.
.


The thing is, those aren't national channels. Most of the events that would actually be in HD on those channels would most likely be baseball, basketball, and hockey broadcasts of local teams. If you don't live in those areas, you must subscribe to the League Pass/Extra Innings/Center Ice to even be able to watch these programs.


Don't believe the hype.

[cheer]

Some DirecTV insiders suggest that there will be about 40 national MPEG-4 HD channels next year. Some of them are likely to be HD sports channels like NESN - no idea what the others will be.Which is somewhat misleading when you think about it, because although you may be able to get the RSNs, most sports programming will be blacked out. (I've had distant RSNs before, and IMO they're worthless with no games.)
We are also likely to see the MPEG-2 HD channels move to MPEG-4 which means we will no longer be able to receive them on the HR10s. I would imagine it will be quite some time until this happens. D* isn't going to force this issue until they have to.For those people whose viewing is mainly OTA that won't be a problem. It will also release some MPEG-2 bandwidth which hopefully (!!) will be used to improve the quality of some of the SD channels.
There is absolutely no precedent for the providers to use extra bandwidth to increase quality, and they won't start now. They'll just add channels.

[HiDefGator]

While there may not be 150 HD channels they could carry today, once they have more bandwidth than content, there could be a fight to see who could fill that bandwidth first. There wouldn't be much point in an HD History channel today because no one would carry it. On the other hand if DTV were active looking for content to fill their new bandwidth the History channel (for example) might be thinking "might as well be us."

Sort of the way hard drive manufacturers never sit around asking who would need a 1 terabyte drive? They just make it and overnight people find a need for it.

[drew2k]

While there may not be 150 HD channels they could carry today, once they have more bandwidth than content, there could be a fight to see who could fill that bandwidth first. There wouldn't be much point in an HD History channel today because no one would carry it. On the other hand if DTV were active looking for content to fill their new bandwidth the History channel (for example) might be thinking "might as well be us.What will then be interesting is watching how DirecTV rolls out those new HD channels: Bundled into the existing HD package, with or without a change in the HD package rate? Or maybe a la carte, for a nominal fee per channel per month? Or maybe the new HD channels will be free of charge to subscribers of TC Plus?

[HiDefGator]

Eventually (and I have no idea when) the HD package will be free. You can't charge for HD if everyone is doing HD. It will be a competitive thing for cable vs. DTV vs. Dish. The first to make it free the others will have to follow. Kind of like that DVR rental\leasing fee going away. The day cable says no dvr fee so drop DTV\Dish, DTV\Dish will have to follow suit and drop the extra dvr fee.