Get Ready For 100's of New HD Channels! Shaw Direct's New Satellite Has Launched!

[SHAW IN-direct]

They need to add CBC NEWS NETWORK HD

A nice start by Shaw Direct but they still have quite a way to go IMO regarding channel additions. As evidenced by bigoranget's list, there are still many HD channels that they need to add. Also, I was surprised that Rewind & Silver Screen Classics were not added as they are carried by Shaw cable and are needed for the Cat. B rule. Perhaps they will be added in the next batch of channel additions- anyone know if there are more channels yet to be added?!

Why have they added so many HD PPV channels- do people still purchase PPV movies in this day and age with online streaming and Netflix?! This seems like a waste of space IMO, they could have added 30 more HD specialties instead of these PPV channels.

I don't think you will ever see on Hollywood Suite or any more ethnics on Shaw Direct.

[LOSat]

bigoranget

My comment about SuperChannel was a general one and not a comparison to Bell Satellite in general. Rogers offers SC HD3 and HD4 and in my mom's community, Eastlink does with a population of just 2200. Satellite penetration is huge there and largely Bell, (because of brand, marketing, word of mouth and depth of offering) and because originally the cable offering was an underbuilt analog system. If Eastlink is willing to fight an uphill battle in a small community why can't Shaw which is supposed to be a major national BDU make the decision to offer a truly compelling service.

TVViewer

They (Shaw Direct) have probably added just enough HD to staunch any major flow of subscribers because of the hassle for a household to swap and invest in new equipment, learn a new interface, learn new channel numbers and put up with complaints from others in the household because the new equipment just works differently. There is a major inertia factor in making a change of providers. Shaws new offering is really not competitve if you live in area comparing Bell Satellite, Rogers and Shaw Direct or Eastlink, Bell Satellite and Shaw Direct. Any person doing a comparison would probably not pick Shaw Direct just because they don't offer as many specialities even if they were not going to subscribe to them right away. If I was setting up a new account and thought Hollywoood Suite would be kind of neat to have, not now but in the future I would probably stay clear of Shaw Direct. Same with TMN why subscribe to Shaw Direct if they offer an incomplete HD package. In my opinion Shaw has added enough to maintain the status quo and not grow the service.

TVViewer you talk about in post #6 how having all these HD channels will allow for more simulcasts, like they are a desirable thing for the consumer. They are only desirable for the broadcaster but for the viewer more often then not all it offers is mutilated returns to a programme on live programming and either incomplete or duplicate endings for shows when the show bump up against the hour. My biggest peeve is that American networks give you a preview of next weeks shows. Canadian broadcasters typically truncated those and squeeze the credits with useless bumpers and bad voice overs.

You also go on to defend the absence of CTV2 in post #21 because all it offers is useless simsubs. So are simsubs good or bad. I would hazard a guess that CKVR in terms of total number of viewers gets more than CFJC or CKPG so by not offering at least one CTV2 station in HD they (Shaw Direct) are shooting themselves in the foot. Besides in the past you have disparaged City's primetime lineup so why offer these CIty affiliates in HD if the lineup is not great. News in HD is probably really not that compelling anyways, yes people want to see/hear their local news. I would hazard that a lot of news is background to dinner prep or eating so HD for news is just not that important but if I was looking at a programming guide for Bell, Rogers or Shaw Direct the total absence of CTV2 HD would stand out. Which is the bigger market CKPG or CKVR.

Back to marketing, other than occassional Shaw Direct direct mail and inserts on CNN etc Shaw does little in the way of marketing. They do the bare minimum for Quebec and the western bias for local HD shows that Shaw Direct is a fallback for Shaw Cable. All evidence shows that Shaw Direct is really not a growth area for Shaw in general. They have made a decision to try to pick enough HD to survive which is kind of sad when the companies roots were to be the leader in HD.

[SportsFan]

My comment about SuperChannel was a general one and not a comparison to Bell Satellite in general. Rogers offers SC HD3 and HD4 and in my mom's community, Eastlink does with a population of just 2200. .... . If Eastlink is willing to fight an uphill battle in a small community why can't Shaw which is supposed to be a major national BDU make the decision to offer a truly compelling service.

Shaw won't add Super Channel HD3&4 until they have to. It competes with their Movie Central and they've done everything they can to handicap it.

[musimax]

anyone know if there are more channels yet to be added?!

SD will be at least adding two new channels that are not in that list: The Rural Channel (apparently it'll be in HD) and Skinemx HD, a porn channel from the people behind Hustler TV.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=LOSat;62407]

TVViewer
They (Shaw Direct) have probably added just enough HD to staunch any major flow of subscribers because of the hassle for a household to swap and invest in new equipment, learn a new interface, learn new channel numbers and put up with complaints from others in the household because the new equipment just works differently. There is a major inertia factor in making a change of providers. Shaws new offering is really not competitve if you live in area comparing Bell Satellite, Rogers and Shaw Direct or Eastlink, Bell Satellite and Shaw Direct. Any person doing a comparison would probably not pick Shaw Direct just because they don't offer as many specialities even if they were not going to subscribe to them right away. If I was setting up a new account and thought Hollywoood Suite would be kind of neat to have, not now but in the future I would probably stay clear of Shaw Direct. Same with TMN why subscribe to Shaw Direct if they offer an incomplete HD package. In my opinion Shaw has added enough to maintain the status quo and not grow the service.

I disagree. I don't see how they are not competitive carrying popular channels not available on other providers. Many of the HD channels they don't carry have very low audience numbers, not all of them but many do. You can't expect them to carry every single HD simulcast that exists and it's not their fault that some (not all) of the HD simulcasts you want have low demand and low viewership. Again, there are a few high demand HD channels Shaw Direct still does not carry, but you are going to experience that with any provider, for example, BC1 is a high demand channel for BC customers and it’s not available on Bell or Telus even in SD (Shaw Direct at least carries most of those missing HD channels in SD) Any BDU, regardless of the company, is never going to publicly admit that they are not carrying a popular channel their customers want (for example Telus wont admit BC1 is a popular high demand channel until they add it to their service) but if you look at some of the HD channels Shaw Direct does not carry, such as HLN, Bloomberg, the CW affiliates (which air the same programming as WGN which is available in HD on Shaw Direct), Treehouse (I can understand a channel targeting 8-12 year olds like Family being in HD, but I really don’t think any 4 year old will mind watching Treehouse in SD) it’s understandable these aren’t carried, and you are ignoring the channels Shaw and Shaw Direct have that their competitors do not, and i’m not just talking about popular channels for BC like BC1, This season Lifetime ranked #21 among ALL specialty channels (digital AND analog) among adults 25-54 (which is impressive given how they are beating analog channels with far more subscribers) the only HD simulcast missing on Shaw Direct doing better than Lifetime is CBC News Network. How does being the only provider to carry top rated channels in HD not make them competitive?

You also have no idea first hand how horrible Bell's customer service and equipment is (and their customer service is even worse when it comes to replacing their equipment when it breaks from no fault of your own) The grass may seem greener on the other side but until you actually switch you can't make a fair comparison.

TVViewer you talk about in post #6 how having all these HD channels will allow for more simulcasts, like they are a desirable thing for the consumer. They are only desirable for the broadcaster but for the viewer more often then not all it offers is mutilated returns to a programme on live programming and either incomplete or duplicate endings for shows when the show bump up against the hour. My biggest peeve is that American networks give you a preview of next weeks shows. Canadian broadcasters typically truncated those and squeeze the credits with useless bumpers and bad voice overs.

You also go on to defend the absence of CTV2 in post #21 because all it offers is useless simsubs. So are simsubs good or bad. I would hazard a guess that CKVR in terms of total number of viewers gets more than CFJC or CKPG so by not offering at least one CTV2 station in HD they (Shaw Direct) are shooting themselves in the foot. Besides in the past you have disparaged City's primetime lineup so why offer these CIty affiliates in HD if the lineup is not great. News in HD is probably really not that compelling anyways, yes people want to see/hear their local news. I would hazard that a lot of news is background to dinner prep or eating so HD for news is just not that important but if I was looking at a programming guide for Bell, Rogers or Shaw Direct the total absence of CTV2 HD would stand out. Which is the bigger market CKPG or CKVR.

No, I never mentioned simsubs in post #6. I only referred to simsubs in regards to CTV Two, and I never said viewers benefit from simsubs (you still get less simsubs on Shaw Direct than on Bell satellite and most cable providers) but they do benefit from having their local news in HD. The only benefits of a satellite provider carrying HD locals are A). Timeshifting, and B). Unique local content in HD. CTV Two is simply not airing any unique programming, local or otherwise, and timeshifting is a non-factor as the few primetime shows they have airing new episodes are available at the exact same times on U.S. HD stations simsub free. There is absolutely no value in adding CTV Two HD at this point, all it would add is duplicate HD programming and simsubs, that's why it makes sense to add the Citytv stations and CFJC HD over CTV Two, as both Citytv and CFJC are producing local content in HD. So no they are not shooting themselves in the foot as their subscribers aren't missing out on any unique HD content, while their subscribers in markets like Kamloops now get to watch their local news in HD

Meanwhile, Bell is missing several local HD stations with actual unique local content in HD. Global is the #2 network in the country and Bell is only carrying 3 Global HD channels, not to mention the fact that their subscribers are missing out on Global's timeshifted HD content. For example, to accommodate their 11:00PM newscast, Global Halifax airs 10:00PM ET programming in PRE-Release at 7:00PM ET / 8:00PM AT. This programming is only available at this time on Global Halifax and Bell subscribers do not have the ability to watch it in HD at this time (for the record, CTV Two Atlantic does not air programming in PRE-Release, they air it at the same time as U.S. stations in simulcast from 9:00PM to 12:00AM AT, making the channel so useless for timeshifting even Bell doesn't carry it in HD)

Back to marketing, other than occassional Shaw Direct direct mail and inserts on CNN etc Shaw does little in the way of marketing. They do the bare minimum for Quebec and the western bias for local HD shows that Shaw Direct is a fallback for Shaw Cable. All evidence shows that Shaw Direct is really not a growth area for Shaw in general. They have made a decision to try to pick enough HD to survive which is kind of sad when the companies roots were to be the leader in HD.

Actually, Shaw Direct does a better job at serving Eastern Canada with HD locals than Bell. As I said the only value in HD locals on satellite is the HD local news, and Shaw Direct is carrying many eastern HD locals with actual unique local content in HD not available on Bell, including NTV, Global Halifax, Global Thunder Bay, and Global Montreal. Yet, I don't see ANY local eastern HD channel with actual HD local news available on Bell but not on Shaw Direct. All Bell has is the useless CTV Two HD simulcasts which again offer nothing unique in HD and zero value to subscribers. Shaw Direct isn't showing a Western Canada bias, they are showing a bias towards HD channels actually offering unique HD content.

[InMontreal]

I disagree. I don't see how they are not competitive carrying popular channels not available on other providers. Many of the HD channels they don't carry have very low audience numbers, not all of them but many do.

His rationale is simple : Shaw Media waited for the new satellite to be useable before launching Slice in HD less than a month ago, which is a Top analog specialty, and they're not offering it to Bell TV, therefor, Shaw Direct has the "most" Top specialties in HD. What an hypocrit.

[bigoranget]

I disagree. I don't see how they are not competitive carrying popular channels not available on other providers. Many of the HD channels they don't carry have very low audience numbers, not all of them but many do.

Another marketing tactic compliments of TVViewer. He's probably talking about the age demo 25-54 which should make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to Shaw Direct. What about actual demand from customers of all ages and what about family of 4+ people that have very different tastes; something almost every households have.

BC1 is a high demand channel for BC customers and it’s not available on Bell or Telus even in SD

This is just your spin; I don't think people are going to make a decision on a provider based on an all news channel. Also in regards to Slice, H2 and Lifetime, I think most providers will have these fairly soon; including Bell.

There is absolutely no value in adding CTV Two HD at this point, all it would add is duplicate HD programming and simsubs,

Oh but what about your argument that CTV Two has exclusive rights to these programs in Canada and their rights need to be protected. But that's okay, CTV Two is owned by Bell (Shaw's main competitor).

You also have no idea first hand how horrible Bell's customer service and equipment is (and their customer service is even worse when it comes to replacing their equipment when it breaks from no fault of your own)

Oh Shaw's customers service is just wonderful isn't it? The average wait time to speak with someone is usually 60+ minutes. When I cancelled my service back in September, it took me nearly two hours to talk to someone. Judging by threads on digital home and their twitter and facebook feeds, that hasn't improved all the much. You can go on and on about how their call centre's are in Canada but what good is their customers service if they can't hire enough people to answer the phone?

Your comment about equipment is BS too; just about any provider in Canada will give you incentives to upgrade or replace equipment if it breaks. Let's also not forget that Bell upgraded people to 8PSK capable receivers and again to MPEG-4 receivers when needed. Shaw CHARGED people for the privilege to upgrade to 8PSK, than again to MPEG-4 and yet again to get the XKu LNB. Ask the thousands of customers that dealt with years of crappy performance on their DSR530 and endless promises that would be fixed only to have support for it to stop and having to purchase yet another buggy POS 630 to get the upgraded features that were promised on the 530.


Finally I'm just going to turn the tables on you and present the numerical facts. Bell has more than DOUBLE the amount of subscribers as Shaw Direct so "ratings" prove that Bell is better than Shaw.

[TVViewer]

His rationale is simple : Shaw Media waited for the new satellite to be useable before launching Slice in HD less than a month ago, which is a Top analog specialty, and they're not offering it to Bell TV, therefor, Shaw Direct has the "most" Top specialties in HD. What an hypocrit.

There are regulations in place which prohibit Shaw from not offering channels to their competitors.

Slice is not the only channel Bell is missing, they are also missing Lifetime, a top rated digital channel and a channel with more viewers than many analog channels. Global News BC 1 is a popular specialty channel for customers in BC and Vancouver, it's not available on Bell. Nat Geo Wild is a top 20 digital channel and it's been on the air for more than a year and its programming targets an HD audience (Bell doesn't even have Nat Geo Wild in SD), another channel with programming that appeals to an HD audience is H2, also not available on Bell, and given how long it took them to add History HD, despite the fact that History targets an HD audience and is the #1 non-sports specialty channel, it will probably take awhile for Bell to add that as well. All these channels, plus FX Canada and a countless number of locals with HD local news, are available on Shaw Direct.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=bigoranget;62707]

Another marketing tactic compliments of TVViewer. He's probably talking about the age demo 25-54 which should make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to Shaw Direct. What about actual demand from customers of all ages and what about family of 4+ people that have very different tastes; something almost every households have.

Viewers 55+ typically watch most of the same shows as Adults 25-54 and I don't see what's wrong with Shaw Direct's offering for younger viewers.

This is just your spin; I don't think people are going to make a decision on a provider based on an all news channel.

I'm just saying it's a popular channel Bell is missing. You bring up the fact that SD is missing HD simulcasts of CTV News Channel and CBC News Network, but I can't bring up how Bell is missing BC's only news channel in both SD & HD? Also, I really doubt anyone will not want to subscribe to Shaw Direct because they don't have HD simulcasts of ANY of the channels listed in your signature. These are not super popular channels so it's very unlikely someone will make the decision to not subscribe to the provider that doesn't have them in HD.

Also in regards to Slice, H2 and Lifetime, I think most providers will have these fairly soon; including Bell.

They don't have them now. Shaw Direct can also add the few popular HD simulcasts they are missing in the future.

Oh but what about your argument that CTV Two has exclusive rights to these programs in Canada and their rights need to be protected. But that's okay, CTV Two is owned by Bell (Shaw's main competitor).

I'm talking about the experience for the consumer. There is ZERO benefit for the consumer to receive access HD feeds of CTV Two at the moment as they don't offer unique local programming and the HD content they broadcast is available elsewhere. Bell only added two "CTV Two" HD stations so they could get simulcasts in Toronto and Vancouver, had they not purchased CTV it's very unlikely these channels would have been added. In fact, before Bell purchased CTV they released a list of HD channels they planned to add (in a CRTC submission) and none of the A-Channel's were included.

However, when it comes to protecting broadcast rights, Bell is by far the worst. The only stations that receive simulcasts on Bell are stations operating in Toronto and Vancouver, which is extremely unfair to stations operating in other markets. I find it very unfair to complain about Shaw Direct not carrying Bell owned CTV Two stations when Bell is only carrying 3 Global stations. Not only is Bell not protecting the programming rights of these Global stations but they are putting these Global stations at a disadvantage by only carrying their competitor in the markets these Global stations operate. Shaw Direct on the other hand added Global's direct competitors (CTV, CBC, City) in all the markets where they added a Global HD station. They did not have to do this, they could have easily given Global an advantage but unlike Bell they put their customers first and added Global's competitors.

Oh Shaw's customers service is just wonderful isn't it? The average wait time to speak with someone is usually 60+ minutes. When I cancelled my service back in September, it took me nearly two hours to talk to someone. Judging by threads on digital home and their twitter and facebook feeds, that hasn't improved all the much. You can go on and on about how their call centre's are in Canada but what good is their customers service if they can't hire enough people to answer the phone?

Your comment about equipment is BS too; just about any provider in Canada will give you incentives to upgrade or replace equipment if it breaks. Let's also not forget that Bell upgraded people to 8PSK capable receivers and again to MPEG-4 receivers when needed. Shaw CHARGED people for the privilege to upgrade to 8PSK, than again to MPEG-4 and yet again to get the XKu LNB. Ask the thousands of customers that dealt with years of crappy performance on their DSR530 and endless promises that would be fixed only to have support for it to stop and having to purchase yet another buggy POS 630 to get the upgraded features that were promised on the 530.

The only reason Bell upgraded the MPEG-4's for free was because they got to use CRTC benefit money from their purchase of CTV to do it. It was a beyond self serving benefits package and the CRTC ignored Shaw's requests to re-direct their benefit money from their purchase of Canwest for the same thing.

Finally I'm just going to turn the tables on you and present the numerical facts. Bell has more than DOUBLE the amount of subscribers as Shaw Direct so "ratings" prove that Bell is better than Shaw.

Of course Bell has more subscribers, just a few weeks ago Shaw Direct had an unacceptable HD channel lineup. This changed on May 29th. I highly doubt I will be the only former Bell subscriber to switch to Shaw Direct now that they have an HD lineup with popular channels you can't get on Bell. Not everyone is going to be like me and switch right away, it will take time.

[bigoranget]

Of course Bell has more subscribers, just a few weeks ago Shaw Direct had an unacceptable HD channel lineup. This changed on May 29th. I highly doubt I will be the only former Bell subscriber to switch to Shaw Direct now that they have an HD lineup with popular channels you can't get on Bell. Not everyone is going to be like me and switch right away, it will take time.

I really don't think much will change. It's not just the lack of HD that is the problem. It's the outdated hardware and firmware on the receivers, it's the lack of sports packages, the lack of French channels and lack of ethnic channels. You seem to forget that there is a large portion of our population that speaks another language other than English. Many of them speak English well and watch all the popular English channels but they also like having access to programming in their native language. This is a big market that Shaw Direct doesn't cover. Then there is the Quebec market. Bell has almost every French channel in HD where Shaw Direct is still missing a good portion of them.

The only reason Bell upgraded the MPEG-4's for free was because they got to use CRTC benefit money from their purchase of CTV to do it. It was a beyond self serving benefits package and the CRTC ignored Shaw's requests to re-direct their benefit money from their purchase of Canwest for the same thing.

I like how you gloss over the 8PSK upgrade that Bell didn't do with any benefit money. :) Also the 8PSK upgrade for both companies was long before Shaw had anything to do with Canwest.

They don't have them now. Shaw Direct can also add the few popular HD simulcasts they are missing in the future.

Yes, I can guarantee that this is by design. Shaw probably didn't even start to negotiate in good faith until the channels launched so that it would give them a leg up. I know that you deny this but this is something that all vertically integrated companies are guilty of. Bell did it with TSN2 and Rogers did it with Sportsnet One. Also I'm willing to bet that Shaw will probably force Bell to add BC1 if they want Slice, H2, Lifetime and DTOUR.

Why not add CBC News Network now? What is stopping them from doing it? This is by far the most requested channel that I see on forums.

Also Shaw Direct is just about out of bandwidth again anyway. They have no transponders that are empty so you probably wont see a whole lot more until they convert the existing F1R and F2 HD transponders to MPEG4 compression with 8PSK Turbo. That is likely still many years away as Shaw Broadcast dictates when that upgrade will happen. Also it should be pointed out that once again Shaw Direct made a bonehead non forward thinking move yet again a few years ago. They also had the option of extended Ku at the 111 location. What did they do, you guessed it, they passed on it. If they had gone with extended Ku at 111 that would have given them another 16 transponders which would have allowed them to carry pretty much every local in HD, have a huge selection of Ethnic and french channels. But as I and many others have stated in this thread, Shaw isn't interested in being the number 1 BDU. They added enough to prevent the existing customer base from eroding.

[InMontreal]

There are regulations in place which prohibit Shaw from not offering channels to their competitors.

On paper, it's fine. In reality, it's something else :

Sun News was available on Bell Satellite TV until the morning of May 3, 2011, when the channel was removed from the service at Quebecor's request because no carriage fee agreement had been reached with Bell TV. Bell countered that Quebecor's asking price for Sun News carriage was in line with more popular channels and deemed too high for such a "new and relatively untested" channel;

Global News BC1 launched March 14th. It's still new and untested, and I understand Bell and Telus waiting before adding the channel to their lineup.

Slice is not the only channel Bell is missing, they are also missing Lifetime, a top rated digital channel and a channel with more viewers than many analog channels.

I can't take your word for it. Where's your source or reference ? Where's that famous Top 20 channels listing ?

[bigoranget]

The ratings don't really matter anyway. TVViewer is basing the whole logic of his argument around rantings for specialty channels; which is mainly the 25-54 demographic. There are lots of people outside this demographic and the amount of people that want the so called low rated channels is probably way higher than what TVViewer would have you believe.

Channels like MTV, E!, Discovery Science, Investigation Discovery, Animal Planet, CBC News, Nickelodeon, CMT, Sundance Channel and Comso don't have insignificant ratings. Also American channels like Spike and NFL Network are more popular than what TVViewer would have you believe as well.

Sure he can make the case that Slice, H2, Lifetime, FX and Nat Geo Wild are important channels and this gives Shaw Direct an advantage but I'm willing to bet Bell will close the gap on missing channels before Shaw ever does.

[LOSat]

I am going to reiterate for all the same reasons that I stated in post #31 that those are reasons why I think Shaw Direct is the worst major BDU in Canada. They are a minor leaguer playing in the major leagues. I will also state that when asked by colleagues at work that unless you are going for the LTSS package find another provider, Shaw Direct is not in the game.

It's strange in the past I stopped posting in this forum for a period of time because of the incessant pom pom posts of one poster made my head spin. For my own sake I have now put them on ignore because even if the rest of the world agreed that the sky is, was and always will be blue but somehow if there was strange parallel and yet coexistant universe where one organization and it's most ardent fan insisted no it's green there would be no convincing them it was in fact blue when all the evidence existed that it was in fact blue. Other than seeing pom pom posts in quotes I look forward to participating in this forum with much more enjoyment.

[musimax]

However, when it comes to protecting broadcast rights, Bell is by far the worst. The only stations that receive simulcasts on Bell are stations operating in Toronto and Vancouver, which is extremely unfair to stations operating in other markets. I find it very unfair to complain about Shaw Direct not carrying Bell owned CTV Two stations when Bell is only carrying 3 Global stations. Not only is Bell not protecting the programming rights of these Global stations but they are putting these Global stations at a disadvantage by only carrying their competitor in the markets these Global stations operate. Shaw Direct on the other hand added Global's direct competitors (CTV, CBC, City) in all the markets where they added a Global HD station. They did not have to do this, they could have easily given Global an advantage but unlike Bell they put their customers first and added Global's competitors.

Oh, Bell is the worst, eh? Yet we have Shaw Direct not carrying any CTV Two stations at all in HD. At least Bell carries some Global stations in HD. That makes sense.

And regardless of whether Bell would be carrying CTV Two HD stations if they didn't own them or not is irreverent. The fact is that they are. And of course they would carry them because they own them. As you've made reference to many times before on here to Shaw/Direct carrying Shaw-owned channels, of course they would carry them, they own them, it makes business sense.

The only reason Bell upgraded the MPEG-4's for free was because they got to use CRTC benefit money from their purchase of CTV to do it. It was a beyond self serving benefits package and the CRTC ignored Shaw's requests to re-direct their benefit money from their purchase of Canwest for the same thing.

Oh, so when Bell asks for it from the CRTC and gets it, it's "beyond self serving". Yet, when Shaw asked for it and was denied, it wasn't beyond self serving? Because it's Bell, it's self serving right?

Oh and another thing, you fail to mention or critique any mention of Shaw's other self serving requests and approvals from their benefit package. LTSS program ring a bell?

Of course Bell has more subscribers, just a few weeks ago Shaw Direct had an unacceptable HD channel lineup. This changed on May 29th. I highly doubt I will be the only former Bell subscriber to switch to Shaw Direct now that they have an HD lineup with popular channels you can't get on Bell. Not everyone is going to be like me and switch right away, it will take time.

No, not many will make the switch right away, if they even make the switch at all. Not everyone else is a Shaw spam-bot/lap dog. They are going to go with the provider that gives them a better experience, and from the satellite choices we have, that's Bell/Telus for the many reasons cited here by fellow members.

for example, BC1 is a high demand channel for BC customers and it’s not available on Bell or Telus even in SD (Shaw Direct at least carries most of those missing HD channels in SD) Any BDU, regardless of the company, is never going to publicly admit that they are not carrying a popular channel their customers want (for example Telus wont admit BC1 is a popular high demand channel until they add it to their service)

Where the hell are your facts? That's the thing with TVViewer, he likes to throw around these statements (those being positive statements for Shaw and negative statements for their competitors) as facts all the time but never has any proof to back them up. There was an article in the National Post online that stated Telus had only received a few calls about BC1. Telus is not a small little nothing of a TV provider either in BC. They have Optik and Satellite TV services there. If this was such a high demand channel, they would be receiving more than a few calls about the channel. And now he is actually blaming Telus and essentially calling them liars in the same paragraph. Oh yeah, I'm sure TVViewer knows exactly what's going on at Telus' customer service department. What a joke. Until TVViewer actually provides some proof, this is just blatant lies and spin from the resident Shaw employee trying to promote and defend his employer.

Treehouse (I can understand a channel targeting 8-12 year olds like Family being in HD, but I really don’t think any 4 year old will mind watching Treehouse in SD) it’s understandable these aren’t carried

To an extent you have a point here, but you fail to mention that per-schoolers are not the only ones watching these channels. Parents are often sitting with their kids and forced to watch this as well. Corus is trying to play up on this fact with advertisers. Check out the stuff on their sales website about Treehouse. http://www.corusmedia.com/treehouse-family/ratings.aspx

If parents have to sit and watch this crap, they are going to want to at least have it in a good picture quality. And I bet their is even a decent chuck of viewers who are adults just watching it themselves as well. Just like SpongeBob SquarePants, isn't Dora the Explorer one of those odd kids shows that also have a cult following by adults?

No, I never mentioned simsubs in post #6. I only referred to simsubs in regards to CTV Two, and I never said viewers benefit from simsubs (you still get less simsubs on Shaw Direct than on Bell satellite and most cable providers) but they do benefit from having their local news in HD.

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth here, which is so surprise since you're only reason here is to promote Shaw and your "opinion" shifts when it suits your argument. You're apparently all about supporting local stations, local content, and protecting broadcast rights, yet here you are defending a company like Shaw Direct not carrying CTV Two HD stations which 1) does not protect their local broad rights for the American programming they bought and 2) hurts the local stations financially because they cannot simsub which means less revenue to go into local programming. If you are not going to support them, then how can they put up the money for local to start producing local new sin HD?

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=musimax;62718]

Oh, Bell is the worst, eh? Yet we have Shaw Direct not carrying any CTV Two stations at all in HD. At least Bell carries some Global stations in HD. That makes sense.

And regardless of whether Bell would be carrying CTV Two HD stations if they didn't own them or not is irreverent. The fact is that they are. And of course they would carry them because they own them. As you've made reference to many times before on here to Shaw/Direct carrying Shaw-owned channels, of course they would carry them, they own them, it makes business sense.

Shaw Direct carries the same number of Shaw/Global HD local stations as they do Bell/CTV HD (9 each). Bell carries 10 CTV/CTV2 HD stations and only 3 Global HD stations. So yeah, Bell is the worst. As ideal it would be for both satellite providers to carry every local station in HD that's just not something either provider appears willing to do at the moment, and if they aren't going to carry every local HD channel how is there any logic in carrying channels not providing viewers with any unique HD content? Until they carry every other local HD station actually broadcasting unique HD content it makes zero sense to carry channels that don't. From a consumer prospective it makes no sense, and if we are talking about the financial viability of local stations, how is it fair to carry the Bell owned stations with no local content in HD over the other stations that actually made the investment to produce local news in HD. Shaw Direct isn't just carrying small market Global HD stations with HD local news not available on Bell, they also carry independent locals that made the investment to go HD including CFJC, CKPR, and NTV. In my opinion all these stations deserve HD carriage over the Bell stations providing viewers with no unique HD content.

If Shaw Direct were to behave like Bell they would only carry 3 CTV HD stations, Shaw Direct carries 9. If Shaw Direct were to behave like Bell they would not protect the exclusive program rights of every local station not based in Toronto and Vancouver. To complain about them for not carrying two Bell owned stations offering no unique content in HD while Bell is refusing to carry several Shaw owned stations actually producing local news in HD just shows how biased YOU are.

Oh, so when Bell asks for it from the CRTC and gets it, it's "beyond self serving". Yet, when Shaw asked for it and was denied, it wasn't beyond self serving? Because it's Bell, it's self serving right?

Oh and another thing, you fail to mention or critique any mention of Shaw's other self serving requests and approvals from their benefit package. LTSS program ring a bell?

I didn't say Shaw doing the same thing wouldn't be self serving. It's so self serving that Shaw didn't even think to include it in their benefits for the purchase of Canwest. Bell got to use benefit money to increase their capacity and replace their receivers, in my opinion that sounds a lot more self serving than giving OTA viewers who lost access to OTA channels a free satellite dish to receive their local channels at no cost.

No, not many will make the switch right away, if they even make the switch at all. Not everyone else is a Shaw spam-bot/lap dog. They are going to go with the provider that gives them a better experience, and from the satellite choices we have, that's Bell/Telus for the many reasons cited here by fellow members.

And not everyone is crazy like you. It's a matter of opinion which provider gives you the better experience. Just because two SD subscribers (one former, one current) think Bell is better does not make that the case. Each provider has their own advantages and disadvantages. For me the advantages of Shaw Direct (locals in HD, access to the high rated HD specialty channels missing on Bell, ect.) make Shaw Direct the better provider. You truly are crazy if you think there is nobody else who shares this opinion.

Where the hell are your facts? That's the thing with TVViewer, he likes to throw around these statements (those being positive statements for Shaw and negative statements for their competitors) as facts all the time but never has any proof to back them up. There was an article in the National Post online that stated Telus had only received a few calls about BC1. Telus is not a small little nothing of a TV provider either in BC. They have Optik and Satellite TV services there. If this was such a high demand channel, they would be receiving more than a few calls about the channel. And now he is actually blaming Telus and essentially calling them liars in the same paragraph. Oh yeah, I'm sure TVViewer knows exactly what's going on at Telus' customer service department.

What a joke. Until TVViewer actually provides some proof, this is just blatant lies and spin from the resident Shaw employee trying to promote and defend his employer.

Where are the facts that Telus only had a few customers calling about BC1? You really think a Telus representative would tell a newspaper reporter doing a story about the company that they are refusing to carry a high demand channel their customers want? Seriously? Do you not realize how incredibly stupid that sounds? Of course Telus is going to lie and say the channel isn't popular. No company is going to turn a puff piece story about the company into a story about how they aren't carrying a popular channel. You know what else Telus said in the interview? That they have a "great relationship with Shaw", all you have to do is read the CRTC submissions between these two companies to know that's not true. They lied about their relationship with Shaw (although it's hard to see what broadcaster Telus has a good relationship with) and they lied about the popularity of BC's only all news channel from BC's dominant source for news.

Unlike you, I know how popular Global News is in Vancouver. You know so little about the Vancouver market that you actually compared BC1 to CityNews Channel acting like there was no difference, and now you actually believe the channel isn't popular because Shaw's arch rival Telus said so with no facts to back their lie up. Wow.

To an extent you have a point here, but you fail to mention that per-schoolers are not the only ones watching these channels. Parents are often sitting with their kids and forced to watch this as well. Corus is trying to play up on this fact with advertisers. Check out the stuff on their sales website about Treehouse. http://www.corusmedia.com/treehouse-family/ratings.aspx



If parents have to sit and watch this crap, they are going to want to at least have it in a good picture quality. And I bet their is even a decent chuck of viewers who are adults just watching it themselves as well. Just like SpongeBob SquarePants, isn't Dora the Explorer one of those odd kids shows that also have a cult following by adults?

Wow. So now they should carry HD channels for people who aren't actually interested in the content of the show and for a fringe group of adults? You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Plus you act like SD is horrible picture quality, you would be shocked at how many adults don't mind SD viewing.

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth here, which is so surprise since you're only reason here is to promote Shaw and your "opinion" shifts when it suits your argument. You're apparently all about supporting local stations, local content, and protecting broadcast rights, yet here you are defending a company like Shaw Direct not carrying CTV Two HD stations which 1) does not protect their local broad rights for the American programming they bought and 2) hurts the local stations financially because they cannot simsub which means less revenue to go into local programming. If you are not going to support them, then how can they put up the money for local to start producing local new sin HD?

My opinion has not changed. I would like it for both satellite providers to carry every local HD station. My point was that strictly from a consumer point of view (as the discussion was about consumers) there is no value in adding CTV Two HD, and I don't think Bell owned channels producing no local content in HD should be added over other local channels, regardless of who owns them, that actually made the investment to produce local content in HD. I never said Shaw Direct was perfect with their HD carriage of local stations, but they are far better than Bell as they are carrying several local HD channels missing on Bell

Shaw Direct is also way better than Bell at protecting broadcast rights for local stations. Every local station on Shaw Direct has their programming rights protected in their local market. Bell is NOT protecting the exclusive broadcast rights of almost every local television station they carry. They do across the board simulcasts of Toronto and Vancouver stations. When it comes to the financial situation of local stations Shaw Direct blows Bell out of the water.

I'm sure you will argue against every point I make, it's not going to change my mind and you are just making yourself look foolish. You have such an obsessive hatred towards me that you are now just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and wont even take into consideration valid points. Anything positive I say about Shaw is regarded by you as spam or a lie. That's fine, I'm happy someone has messed up as you doesn't share my views or believe anything I say.

[bigoranget]

TVViewer just so you know CFJC, CKPG, CHAT, CITL, CKSA, CHFD and CKPR do NOT produce news in HD. It's widescreen SD just like many of the CBC affiliates and CHCH. The only true HD news channels are some of the CBC, Global, CTV, City, Radio-Canada and TVA O&O operated stations.

Wow. So now they should carry HD channels for people who aren't actually interested in the content of the show and for a fringe group of adults? You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Plus you act like SD is horrible picture quality, you would be shocked at how many adults don't mind SD viewing.

Here's a question for you; why does Shaw Cable and Shaw Direct have such an issue providing a diverse selection of HD channels? I don't want to hear your marketing nonsense about ratings and that they have the highest rated channels. Why can't they add a decent chunk of channels that are in my signature? It's almost like they have some kind of elevated standard for channel additions. No other BDU is like Shaw. Since 2001 when the digital channels first launched, Shaw carried the least amount of category 2 channels. Here we are 12 years later and that is still true today. Every other BDU tries to offer every possible channel; except for Shaw and Shaw Direct. It's like they go out of their way to have less than everyone else.

I know you are just going to reply saying that Bell doesn't carry this and that...but the list of channels that Bell doesn't carry is way smaller than Shaw/Shaw Directs and if you did a comparison of the land based services Shaw Cable and Bell Fibe, Bell Fibe would blow Shaw out of the water any day. Heck even my local cable company Source Cable, which probably doesn't have much more than 20,000 customers walks circles around Shaw/Shaw Direct any day.

[musimax]

Here we go, more inane blinded defences of Shaw from it's Channel Canada resident spammer employee. You're not fooling anyone. Anyone with a grade 5 education here knows what you're doing. You're delusional if you think you're fooling anyone or that you think by coming on here that you are going to somehow make any iota of a difference is making Shaw a more profitable company. How delusional and pathetic. If anything you're doing harm to the Shaw brand. I know I want to support a company that apparently employees people like yourself!

Shaw Direct carries the same number of Shaw/Global HD local stations as they do Bell/CTV HD (9 each). Bell carries 10 CTV/CTV2 HD stations and only 3 Global HD stations. So yeah, Bell is the worst.

Oh yeah, and that's worst than Shaw Direct not carrying any HD stations at all from CTV Two. CTV Two is not some nothing burger of a netwokr either. It may not be as huge as the others, but it's not like it's comparable to Joytv, CTS, or even OMNI. At least Bell carries some Global HD stations.

I'm not here to champion Bell, both could be better But to compare as equal or even worse Bell's small count of Global HD statiosn to SD's lack of any CTV Two HD statiosn is crazy.

As ideal it would be for both satellite providers to carry every local station in HD that's just not something either provider appears willing to do at the moment, and if they aren't going to carry every local HD channel how is there any logic in carrying channels not providing viewers with any unique HD content? Until they carry every other local HD station actually broadcasting unique HD content it makes zero sense to carry channels that don't. From a consumer prospective it makes no sense, and if we are talking about the financial viability of local stations, how is it fair to carry the Bell owned stations with no local content in HD over the other stations that actually made the investment to produce local news in HD. Shaw Direct isn't just carrying small market Global HD stations with HD local news not available on Bell, they also carry independent locals that made the investment to go HD including CFJC, CKPR, and NTV. In my opinion all these stations deserve HD carriage over the Bell stations providing viewers with no unique HD content.

Again, your lies have been uncovered by bigoranget. This is what TVViewer does, he keeps repeating his lies over and over again until someoen actually believes them or somehow they magically change reality and if he wishes hard eniough, it will come true.Nothing you say can be believed as you make up lies to help support your arguments all the time.

I didn't say Shaw doing the same thing wouldn't be self serving. It's so self serving that Shaw didn't even think to include it in their benefits for the purchase of Canwest. Bell got to use benefit money to increase their capacity and replace their receivers, in my opinion that sounds a lot more self serving than giving OTA viewers who lost access to OTA channels a free satellite dish to receive their local channels at no cost.

This is how ludicris TVViewer is, he is actually defending the LTSS program and thinks it isn't self-serving! LOL, on my lord, you are too much! Yes, because having access to these poeple to upsell their products and services and make a profit off them is not self-serving?

Everyone does self-serving things. And if I were a broadcaster/BDU, I'd want to do the same thing. But for you to actually say it is not, just shows how you are promoting/defending Shaw and you are connected in some way to them.

And not everyone is crazy like you. It's a matter of opinion which provider gives you the better experience. Just because two SD subscribers (one former, one current) think Bell is better does not make that the case.

Just like anything you say, it's all opinion. You throw around "facts" all the time, but have no proof for any of it.

Each provider has their own advantages and disadvantages. For me the advantages of Shaw Direct (locals in HD, access to the high rated HD specialty channels missing on Bell, ect.) make Shaw Direct the better provider. You truly are crazy if you think there is nobody else who shares this opinion.

I never once said there weren't others out there like you. I'm saying not everyone will jump providers to SD right away or at all. Again, putting words in people's mouths they didn't say to support your argument.

Where are the facts that Telus only had a few customers calling about BC1? You really think a Telus representative would tell a newspaper reporter doing a story about the company that they are refusing to carry a high demand channel their customers want? Seriously? Do you not realize how incredibly stupid that sounds? Of course Telus is going to lie and say the channel isn't popular. No company is going to turn a puff piece story about the company into a story about how they aren't carrying a popular channel. You know what else Telus said in the interview? That they have a "great relationship with Shaw", all you have to do is read the CRTC submissions between these two companies to know that's not true. They lied about their relationship with Shaw (although it's hard to see what broadcaster Telus has a good relationship with) and they lied about the popularity of BC's only all news channel from BC's dominant source for news.

You have zero, let me say that again, ZERO facts to support your argument that BC1 is some kind of high demand channel. Global BC's news may be popular, but that does not in any way translate into the fact that an all news local channel will be "high demand". You are again pulling facts out of your ass to support your inane arguments. Where's my facts? Well, Telus actually said pubicall that they only received a few calls. Coudl they be lying? Of course they could be. But I am certainly more willing to trust someone from Telus than to trust a certified longstanding Shaw employee spammer that is well known for telling lies and defending Shaw on each and every single issue that is on some stupid TV web forum.

And to your point that Telus has some bad relationship with Shaw. What, because they oppose some of their applications? Big deal. Every BDU and broadcaster spars back and forth from time to time in front of the CRTC on different issues. That's all part of the game.

Now, if I'm correct here, somebody tell em if I'm not, but it appears to me Telus' Optik TV carries every Shaw speciality channel in SD (except BC1), and carries a reasonable amunt of Global statiosnin HD and SD, and carries all of Shaw's specialties in HD as well with the exception of a couple channels that only just recently launched in HD,and it appears few newly launched channels get wide carriage out of the gate (H2, Slice, and Lifetime). So, oh yeah, oh boy, Telsu must have some bad relationship with Shaw, Telus can't seem to be able to get any Shaw channels.

Unlike you, I know how popular Global News is in Vancouver. You know so little about the Vancouver market that you actually compared BC1 to CityNews Channel acting like there was no difference, and now you actually believe the channel isn't popular because Shaw's arch rival Telus said so with no facts to back their lie up. Wow.

Hahaha, coming from someone who compared CityNews Channel to Sun News Network!

Wow. So now they should carry HD channels for people who aren't actually interested in the content of the show and for a fringe group of adults? You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Plus you act like SD is horrible picture quality, you would be shocked at how many adults don't mind SD viewing.

Again, putting words in my mouth i didn't say. Bell or Shaw does not have to carry Treehouse TV if they don't want to . I could care less. I'm just saying there's an audience fo rit beyond pre-schoolers.

Oh, so now you think SD is actually ok? So what the hell do you care how many HD locals any provider carrys then? So what about the locally procuded news in HD. If SD is fine enough, then who cares, right? You're running in circles here. At least try to get your arguments straight.

Shaw Direct is also way better than Bell at protecting broadcast rights for local stations. Every local station on Shaw Direct has their programming rights protected in their local market. Bell is NOT protecting the exclusive broadcast rights of almost every local television station they carry. They do across the board simulcasts of Toronto and Vancouver stations. When it comes to the financial situation of local stations Shaw Direct blows Bell out of the water.

Yes, Bell should be simsubbing all local stations where ti is required, not just the big markets. They are not perfect. I'm not debating that, but for you to think they are so way beyond superior than Bell is laughable and shows your true colours as a Shaw employee spammer.

I'm sure you will argue against every point I make, it's not going to change my mind and you are just making yourself look foolish. You have such an obsessive hatred towards me that you are now just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and wont even take into consideration valid points. Anything positive I say about Shaw is regarded by you as spam or a lie. That's fine, I'm happy someone has messed up as you doesn't share my views or believe anything I say.

Dude, you've looked foolish from the day you started posting on here. Everyone knows you are connected ot Shaw and are only here to spam. I do take into consideration valid points, and I'm not saying you don';t in some areas, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a spammer and a lie.

[TVViewer]

Again, your lies have been uncovered

The only liar here is you. I'm not here to "help" any company, i'm here to state my opinion, not represent any company. Keep making your accusations, i'm not even going to bother responding to them, anyone taking you seriously needs to be prescribed the same medication as you. I still want to know what company would employ someone as toxic and hateful as you. Why wont you disclose your real name and employment? Are you not disclosing this because you are afraid of people finding out how toxic and hateful you really are? Why are you hiding your identity? Ashamed of your behavior? You should be.

[TVViewer]

TVViewer just so you know CFJC, CKPG, CHAT, CITL, CKSA, CHFD and CKPR do NOT produce news in HD. It's widescreen SD just like many of the CBC affiliates and CHCH. The only true HD news channels are some of the CBC, Global, CTV, City, Radio-Canada and TVA O&O operated stations.

Are you sure? CFJC (and the other Jim Pattison stations) actually say that their news is in high definition in their newscast open. If it is in fact in widescreen then they should probably stop claiming to be in HD and remove the big red "In High Definition" graphic from their newscast open.

[bigoranget]

Are you sure? CFJC (and the other Jim Pattison stations) actually say that their news is in high definition in their newscast open. If it is in fact in widescreen then they should probably stop claiming to be in HD and remove the big red "In High Definition" graphic from their newscast open.

From what I have seen they don't appear to be HD. They are just enhanced widescreen. Most smaller market stations have not upgraded their studios to HD yet in the US and that is probably true for the Canadian ones too. It's good that they at least went to widescreen though, most CTV stations wont even do that.