Shaw HD Plus

[calculoso]

So.. I'd have to pay through the nose (no discount) to upgrade to a HD PVR, then pay even more to get the extra HD channels?

Guess it won't be HD for me for quite a while...

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I actually find this somewhat amusing. People complain about Shaw not having as much HD content as other providers, so Shaw steps it up. Now they are asking people to pay for the bandwidth that they are requesting, and people have issues with it.

There is no way for a customer to keep their current Shaw HD lineup without forking over more money. That's the problem. If all they did was introduce five new channels and kept their current free lineup, we'd all be happy.

Keep in mind when we buy our HD DCT's that our TV service provider sees very little of that money; if any at all as some of those are actually subsidized. So just because you gave $700 to Shaw for the box doesn't mean Shaw made $700 off you. Same as how they didn't make a dime off that $2000 TV you bought at Future Shop.

Eh? My brother used to work at Future Shop; I assure you Shaw and Future Shop make good money off the HD boxes (so did my brother - $50 spiffs on those buggers). They make almost nothing off of the regular digital cable boxes, but the retailers love them because they help sell TVs.

Shaw desperately wants everybody to go to digital cable. Analog cable takes up far too much bandwidth, and they want to add more channels to compete with satellite. They can't do that without killing their analog service.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Shazam

There is no way for a customer to keep their current Shaw HD lineup without forking over more money. That's the problem. If all they did was introduce five new channels and kept their current free lineup, we'd all be happy.

Did you think it was going to be free forever? Or would it be better to make everybody pay an increased price for cable, so that the people getting HD wouldn't be the only ones paying more?

Or would it have been better for Shaw to have started charging a fee when they only had 3 HD channels available?

Most companies make the early adopters pay dearly for the new technology. Instead Shaw offered it for free until it was a valuable enough package to justify charging money for.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Eh? My brother used to work at Future Shop; I assure you Shaw and Future Shop make good money off the HD boxes (so did my brother - $50 spiffs on those buggers).

Just because Shaw paid your brother as well as FS a spiff for selling them doesn't mean that Shaw is making money on them. The main reason Shaw doesn't allow non-Shaw boxes to be added is they have a reciprical agreement in place with other cable companies to not activate each other's boxes on their networks; so that Comcast doesn't end up subsidizing a Shaw customer.

I guess for me I always felt justified in paying $10 for HD programming even though up until a month ago my Tv wasn't even HD. The improved picture on my SD TV as well as the 5.1 sound were enough for me. Now that I have a true HDTV, I can't imagine not spending money to feed it quality signals.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Oh well. I guess no more HD games for me then starting next year. I can't afford the $9/month.

And other than TSN and Sportsnet, I have no use for the other HD channels.

Are you saying that you can not afford the $9 a month, or that you don't think its cost-effective to pay that amount for only those two channels? I guess if its the former, while its none of my business, it seems funny that you could afford an HDTV but not the $9 a month to run it. I mean, it wasn't going to be free forever, right?

As an aside, I've never seen a sporting event in HD, but I'd gladly spent the $9 a month for just TSN and Sportsnet HD.

[Ghost in the attic]

Originally Posted by fredr123

My beef isn't with having more HD content. I would pay extra to watch everything in HD. More HD the better. What irked me was the way the characterized moving TSN and Sportsnet to the HD Plus package. They are implying that until now I was getting it as part of a free trial and now that the trial is up I have to pay extra. There was no free trial mentioned at any time when I signed up.

If you want to charge for those two channels (and others) fine. No problem with that. It's your prerogative and you've given me 1/3 of a year's notice. Just don't be so deceptive about it. Call it what it is.

Exactly....the two HD channels i actually watch (except for CBS) are now 'extra' channels. When i signed up Shaw sang a different tune about thier HD.....now theyre charging extra for it. BRUTAL

THat said.....HDTV is unreal, and i will have to buck up and fork over $9

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Did you think it was going to be free forever? Or would it be better to make everybody pay an increased price for cable, so that the people getting HD wouldn't be the only ones paying more?

Well, seeing as how my cable bill has gone up steadily far above inflation since I started paying for it in 1991, I'd say that I've been paying more than a reasonable fee for a very long time.

Or would it have been better for Shaw to have started charging a fee when they only had 3 HD channels available?

I don't know. Do you?

Most companies make the early adopters pay dearly for the new technology. Instead Shaw offered it for free until it was a valuable enough package to justify charging money for.

We did pay dearly for it. That damned box costs $700.

Just because Shaw paid your brother as well as FS a spiff for selling them doesn't mean that Shaw is making money on them.

Suffice it to say, it is common knowledge among electronics salesmen what the profit margin Shaw has on the boxes. They have to; at the very least they have to let Shaw cover their cost on the box when they're sold.

The main reason Shaw doesn't allow non-Shaw boxes to be added is they have a reciprical agreement in place with other cable companies to not activate each other's boxes on their networks; so that Comcast doesn't end up subsidizing a Shaw customer.

Sorry, but what does Comcast have to do with any of this?

I guess for me I always felt justified in paying $10 for HD programming even though up until a month ago my Tv wasn't even HD. The improved picture on my SD TV as well as the 5.1 sound were enough for me. Now that I have a true HDTV, I can't imagine not spending money to feed it quality signals.

Well that's fine and dandy. It's also fine and dandy that I don't have to pay $9/month. Last time I looked it was my choice where to spend my money.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Are you saying that you can not afford the $9 a month, or that you don't think its cost-effective to pay that amount for only those two channels? I guess if its the former, while its none of my business, it seems funny that you could afford an HDTV but not the $9 a month to run it. I mean, it wasn't going to be free forever, right?

I have a baby due in two months. I will have extra expenses coming as a result. Therefore, I need to prioritize my spending. This is very low on my priority list.

[Antithesis]

Makes sense to me! Congrats!

[ken0042]

Shazam, it's quite clear that you are simply trying to be agrumentative. Obviously your cable bill will go up faster than inflation if they continue to add channels. There's a lot more channels now than in 1991. I also asked for your opinion on a different approach to pricing, and all you could say is "I don't know. Do you?"

Regarding Comcast, you can't honestly tell me that you think that Shaw is the only one who buys cable boxes to sell to their customers.

The good news for you is you are in luck in that used cable boxes hold their value, so you should have no trouble selling yours.

[fredr123]

Somewhat related questions.

1a. I didn't have HD until the playoffs this year. How many SNET Flames games were shown in HD? (Please say lots)

1b. Does Rogers blackout SNEST Pacific Canucks games and other out-of-market NHL games here in Calgary? (Probably, right?)

2a. Are Showcase, A&E, CTV, etc. available in HD on Bell or other providers?

2b. If yes, how much of their content is actually in HD?

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Somewhat related questions.

1a. I didn't have HD until the playoffs this year. How many SNET Flames games were shown in HD? (Please say lots)

1b. Does Rogers blackout SNEST Pacific Canucks games and other out-of-market NHL games here in Calgary? (Probably, right?)

2a. Are Showcase, A&E, CTV, etc. available in HD on Bell or other providers?

2b. If yes, how much of their content is actually in HD?

1a) NONE no games in HD. Due to the regional licesnce they have and the HD being a nation channel????
1b) YES See above (I think)
2a) do not know
2b) do not know

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

2a. Are Showcase, A&E, CTV, etc. available in HD on Bell or other providers?

2b. If yes, how much of their content is actually in HD?

CTV is available now, and Showcase and A&E are coming this fall. No word yet as to how much content will be HD on those.

With CTV most of prime time is HD; however most of that comes from American broadcasters; so it's almost a curse having CTV HD.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Mccree

1a) NONE no games in HD. Due to the regional licesnce they have and the HD being a nation channel????

I suspected as much. Do they have any NHL games in HD, then, given their regional licensing structure?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

CTV is available now, and Showcase and A&E are coming this fall. No word yet as to how much content will be HD on those.

With CTV most of prime time is HD; however most of that comes from American broadcasters; so it's almost a curse having CTV HD.

And all your CSI's and Grey's Anatomies are already available on their respective American HD channels. Do they just rebroadcast the American feed at the same time but with Canadian commericals like their standard definition equivalents do?

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I suspected as much. Do they have any NHL games in HD, then, given their regional licensing structure?

Do not think so

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Do they just rebroadcast the American feed at the same time but with Canadian commericals like their standard definition equivalents do?

Over the last 18 months there have been issues with poorer sound and picture quality. A few complaints to the CRTC have helped a lot with those. There was also an issue with a CTV logo that was big, ugly and noticable but that is gone as well. For now at least.

The big test will be next month when the fall season starts back up.

[fredr123]

Did anyone notice a message on their latest Shaw bill regarding a $4 increase on their next monthly bill?

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Did anyone notice a message on their latest Shaw bill regarding a $4 increase on their next monthly bill?

Ya I saw that too. So with the 9.00/month HD, the price increase of $4.00 and the cost of the new "Canadian timeshift package " of 3.95 that is a total of 16.95 increase come Jan 1/2006. Oh well my wife complains about the cost but will not let me put up a dish. I guess she will have to deal with it.

[ken0042]

Any ideas what the Canadian Time Shift package gives you as far as channels? I ask because that's one of the big advantages of satellite over cable; and if it's gone I might be inclined to re-consider my service provider.

[Antithesis]

I'd be interested to hear this as well, but I seem to recall it being less than half as costly with Bell as compared to the $4 quoted earlier. I'm probably completely mistaken, however.

I'd be miffed at my company expecting $16 extra a month out of me ... that's very nearly $200 a year ...