DIRECTV HD Revolution Begins

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:02 pm

DirecTV was also the first with HD Local channels by several months. Why does it always have to be a pissing contest? At various times DirecTV and Dish have had advantages over each other in different areas. One is not inherently better than the other. The difference is you hardly ever hear DirecTV owners bashing Dish.

Homeron · Post by **Homeron** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:03 pm

except right now

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:34 am

Homeron wrote:except right now

Wrong again. Find one bad thing I said about Dish in this thread.

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:07 am

milehighmike wrote: The overall point I was trying to make was directed at the title of this thread "Direct TV HD Revolution Begins". Folks put names like that on threads because they must naively believe that, in this case, DirectTV is at the forefront of some spectacular new programming in HD.

Or it could be that Shane was merely copying the headline of the PRESS RELEASE. Did you think he just makes that stuff up?

The fact remains that they're broadcasting 72 national hd channels. If you don't qualify or choose not to subscribe to all of them then you'll have less than that. I wouldn't have a problem if Dish advertised their channels that way either.

Post by **Shane** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:12 am

I think it's safe to say that this thread has ceased being informative and has been reduced to a "My service is best" conversation. Let's wrap it up by simply saying that competition is a good thing. No matter which service you have, it's good for "your" provider to think the "other" provider is ahead ... that means more for you, and probably for less. And if you subscribed to everything both providers offer, DirecTV has more channels. Does it cost more? Sure.

Let's continue this conversation in the HD Coffee Shop and Member Chit Chat: The Satellite Wars: DirecTV vs. Dish Network HDTV

Cheers,

- Shane