dan9999
01-14-2010, 04:55 PM
DIRECTV's HD Plans Are Getting Clearer
By Swanni
tvpredictions.com
Washington, D.C. (January 10, 2010) -- Do you think that DIRECTV carries enough HD networks?
There's increasing evidence that the satcaster does -- and it doesn't plan to do anything about it.
How can I say that, considering that DIRECTV just launched a new satellite to expand its HD capacity? Well, let's look at the facts:
DIRECTV, which has proclaimed itself the HD leader, has actually added just a handful of high-def networks during the last 18 months. Consequently, the satcaster's HD lineup is missing a slew of popular new HD networks such as MSNBC, AMC, WGN America, E!, The Travel Channel, Turner Classic Movies, Epix, IFC and multiplex offerings from HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime.
DIRECTV's satellite space is a bit tight now, but it could have added some of those channels if it really wanted to. After all, many of them can now be found in the lineups of the nation's top cable operators and Dish Network. (Dish now has more HD channels than DIRECTV, but no one would argue that it has more satellite space than DIRECTV.)
But What About That New Satellite?
DIRECTV, which now has more than 100 HD channels, last month launched that new satellite that promises the capacity to offer 200 HD channels.
That should give hope to DIRECTV's HD viewers that more HD networks are coming, right? Well, listen to a recent statement from DIRECTV CFO Patrick Doyle, as reported this week by Multichannel News:
“HD has been really good to us for the last few years,” Doyle said, according to the publication. “We think there is a little bit less in the tank there, but we also are continuously looking at how we can be different than our competitors.”
Multichannel News writes that Doyle "agreed that (DIRECTV's HD) offering may be reaching the saturation point."
So, you ask, why would DIRECTV launch a new 'HD satellite' if its HD offering is reaching the saturation point?
Well, the satcaster just revealed that it will add three new 3-D channels this June. While it's unclear how much bandwidth a 3-D channel will use compared to a regular HD channel, it seems likely that DIRECTV will have to devote considerable satellite space to the 3-D venture.
And DIRECTV has said that it plans to expand its PPV HD and HD On Demand lineups. Unlike HD networks, which DIRECTV has to pay to carry, the PPV movies generate revenue. The more HD PPV channels you offer, the more revenue you create.
Bottom Line
In past columns, I have questioned whether DIRECTV will offer 200 HD channels when the new satellite is operational in the second quarter of the year. I have also suggested that the satcaster will not add more than about 15 new HD networks this year.
But now I am wondering if DIRECTV will add even fewer than that, perhaps as few as five HD networks this year. With that approach, they can save money by paying the networks less in carriage fees. Instead, it can use the majority of the HD capacity on the new satellite for 3-D and PPV.
As a DIRECTV subscriber, I hope that's wrong. But, folks, it's not looking good.
By Swanni
tvpredictions.com
Washington, D.C. (January 10, 2010) -- Do you think that DIRECTV carries enough HD networks?
There's increasing evidence that the satcaster does -- and it doesn't plan to do anything about it.
How can I say that, considering that DIRECTV just launched a new satellite to expand its HD capacity? Well, let's look at the facts:
DIRECTV, which has proclaimed itself the HD leader, has actually added just a handful of high-def networks during the last 18 months. Consequently, the satcaster's HD lineup is missing a slew of popular new HD networks such as MSNBC, AMC, WGN America, E!, The Travel Channel, Turner Classic Movies, Epix, IFC and multiplex offerings from HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime.
DIRECTV's satellite space is a bit tight now, but it could have added some of those channels if it really wanted to. After all, many of them can now be found in the lineups of the nation's top cable operators and Dish Network. (Dish now has more HD channels than DIRECTV, but no one would argue that it has more satellite space than DIRECTV.)
But What About That New Satellite?
DIRECTV, which now has more than 100 HD channels, last month launched that new satellite that promises the capacity to offer 200 HD channels.
That should give hope to DIRECTV's HD viewers that more HD networks are coming, right? Well, listen to a recent statement from DIRECTV CFO Patrick Doyle, as reported this week by Multichannel News:
“HD has been really good to us for the last few years,” Doyle said, according to the publication. “We think there is a little bit less in the tank there, but we also are continuously looking at how we can be different than our competitors.”
Multichannel News writes that Doyle "agreed that (DIRECTV's HD) offering may be reaching the saturation point."
So, you ask, why would DIRECTV launch a new 'HD satellite' if its HD offering is reaching the saturation point?
Well, the satcaster just revealed that it will add three new 3-D channels this June. While it's unclear how much bandwidth a 3-D channel will use compared to a regular HD channel, it seems likely that DIRECTV will have to devote considerable satellite space to the 3-D venture.
And DIRECTV has said that it plans to expand its PPV HD and HD On Demand lineups. Unlike HD networks, which DIRECTV has to pay to carry, the PPV movies generate revenue. The more HD PPV channels you offer, the more revenue you create.
Bottom Line
In past columns, I have questioned whether DIRECTV will offer 200 HD channels when the new satellite is operational in the second quarter of the year. I have also suggested that the satcaster will not add more than about 15 new HD networks this year.
But now I am wondering if DIRECTV will add even fewer than that, perhaps as few as five HD networks this year. With that approach, they can save money by paying the networks less in carriage fees. Instead, it can use the majority of the HD capacity on the new satellite for 3-D and PPV.
As a DIRECTV subscriber, I hope that's wrong. But, folks, it's not looking good.