Re: First Impressions of DirecTV HD package

[Deborah Proctor]

"Bob Lindabury" -nospam> wrote in message
et...
> However, the first time they call you tell them "Please take me off your
> list" and they are required by law to remove you permanently from their
call
> list. If they call you a second time, you can then report them and they
can
> be fined up to $11,000.00 for that call.
>
> I would suggest you record the date, time and name of the person you told
> you wanted to be removed from the list so you have a record of it.
>
> -- Bob

Really... that's great news... the next time AT&T calls me, I'll be sure
to document it somewhere and to use those exact words...

Thanks,
Deborah Proctor

[poldy]

In article >,
(RICHLACA) wrote:

> I really think that if Directv is going to charge us $10.99 for an HD package,
> then it should really be HD and not upconverted 20 year old movies or wide
> screen sports programs. HD is HD and that's what it should be.
> I would have rather paid $4.99 extra for just Discovery HD and get the
> rest free, for what it's worth.
> That's just my opinion.

Bet out of those 3 channels, ESPN gets the lion's share of that $10.99.
Like it or not, sports in HD will drive people to HDTV.

But ESPN/ABC is particularly greedy about the fees it charges cable and
satellite companies.

Then again, they have to hand over billions to the NFL and the other
leagues.

[Vidguy7]

> A car analogy breaks down because one could hope that
>over time ESPN-HD might actually become what its label clearly
>proclaims while a label on a car won't change anything over time.
>

I can see your point, but 2004 will bring almost all HD to ESPN HD. We have no
choice but to wait or cancel.

[Thumper]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:02:23 GMT, poldy > wrote:

>In article >,
> Thumper > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:08:30 GMT, poldy > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > (RICHLACA) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I really think that if Directv is going to charge us $10.99 for an HD
>> >> package,
>> >> then it should really be HD and not upconverted 20 year old movies or wide
>> >> screen sports programs. HD is HD and that's what it should be.
>> >> I would have rather paid $4.99 extra for just Discovery HD and get
>> >> the
>> >> rest free, for what it's worth.
>> >> That's just my opinion.
>> >
>> >Bet out of those 3 channels, ESPN gets the lion's share of that $10.99.
>> >Like it or not, sports in HD will drive people to HDTV.
>> >
>> >But ESPN/ABC is particularly greedy about the fees it charges cable and
>> >satellite companies.
>> >
>> >Then again, they have to hand over billions to the NFL and the other
>> >leagues.
>>
>>
>> Is ESPN in HD anywhere on cable? You would think that with Cable's
>> market penetration they would want to roll or out sooner.
>> Thumper
>
>I think cable is resisting paying higher fees for all programming.
>Historically, ESPN has commanded higher and higher fees, like 20% or
>more. But their contracts with the cable companies prevent the latter
>from putting ESPN on some premium tier or divulging what ESPN is
>demanding.
>
>Plus Comcast has some clout with the most number of pay TV customers and
>looks like they're trying to push their weight around.
>
>They charge $5 for an HDTV set top. If they get more customers to sign
>up, then they could probably thumb their nose at ESPN HD. If on the
>other hand, they lose customers to DTV (which they seem to hate more
>than anything else) because of ESPN HD, then they'll cave and we'll all
>probably have to pay extra for ESPN HD and who knows what other channels.

Well most places comcast doesn't even offer HD yet, much less ESPN-HD.
By the way, where I live the HD boxes are $7.25 and all additional SD
boxes are effectively $7.25 if you want to be able to access premium
services from them.
Thumper