Directv's new satellite questions

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Directv is launching two more satellites in 2007. A satellite Directv just
launched is supposed to be operational this fall. At some point, Directv is
supposed to be moving from an MPEG2 compression technology to and MPEG4
compression technology (renders current MPEG2 recievers obsolete). I am
concerned that my HD reciever might become obsolete. Will it the MPEG
transition happen in fall or in 2007? When this transition is supposed to
occur is a closely guarded secret or I was jsut unable to find out anything
about it on the web. I did read something that Directv is intending to add
more local channels. Anyway I probably have a lot of this wrong. What is
supposed to happen this fall? What kind of new channels will we get? Will
they be using MPEG4 compression technology?

noone
24 answers Last reply
More about directv satellite questions
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Here's my understanding...take it for what it's worth as I'm no expert (for
    more info go to http://www.avsforum.com/) and the HDTV programming section

    they are moving to MPEG4 and yes, your reciever will be obsolete when they
    do. The reality is that DirectTV will almost assuredly do a receiver swap
    when you must move to MPEG4. Whether that new MPEG4 reciever is comparable
    to your current is I guess the big ?. They also have this HD DVR home
    networking solution which appears pretty neat on paper, so maybe if you have
    an HD Tivo they'll subsidize it with a swap of the new HD DVR????

    But when that change will happen is I guess a big ?. This fall they are
    releasing HD locals for the top 12 DMAs I believe. I'm sure those will be
    in MPEG4. If you want or need those, my guess is you'd need a reciever
    that can do MPEG4, though I could be wrong. But the rest of your HD (HBO,
    HDNET, etc.) will likely remain in MPEG2 for quite some time. So I suspect
    the force swap of recievers won't be needed until 2007 or so when all the
    channels move off of MPEG2 to MPEG4. By then you probably won't much care
    that your current reciever needs to be swapped out.

    I think HD locals are their priorty right now, but there was rumors on the
    forum I mentioned above that with this new satellite launch they intend to
    add some new non-locals HD (Starz, INHD, etc.) though it's all rumors as of
    now.

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:TTmwe.1045402$w62.103728@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Directv is launching two more satellites in 2007. A satellite Directv just
    > launched is supposed to be operational this fall. At some point, Directv
    is
    > supposed to be moving from an MPEG2 compression technology to and MPEG4
    > compression technology (renders current MPEG2 recievers obsolete). I am
    > concerned that my HD reciever might become obsolete. Will it the MPEG
    > transition happen in fall or in 2007? When this transition is supposed to
    > occur is a closely guarded secret or I was jsut unable to find out
    anything
    > about it on the web. I did read something that Directv is intending to
    add
    > more local channels. Anyway I probably have a lot of this wrong. What is
    > supposed to happen this fall? What kind of new channels will we get? Will
    > they be using MPEG4 compression technology?
    >
    > noone
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:20:44 GMT, "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net>
    wrote:

    >Here's my understanding...take it for what it's worth as I'm no expert (for
    >more info go to http://www.avsforum.com/) and the HDTV programming section
    >
    >they are moving to MPEG4 and yes, your reciever will be obsolete when they
    >do. The reality is that DirectTV will almost assuredly do a receiver swap
    >when you must move to MPEG4. Whether that new MPEG4 reciever is comparable
    >to your current is I guess the big ?. They also have this HD DVR home
    >networking solution which appears pretty neat on paper, so maybe if you have
    >an HD Tivo they'll subsidize it with a swap of the new HD DVR????
    >
    >But when that change will happen is I guess a big ?. This fall they are
    >releasing HD locals for the top 12 DMAs I believe. I'm sure those will be
    >in MPEG4. If you want or need those, my guess is you'd need a reciever
    >that can do MPEG4, though I could be wrong. But the rest of your HD (HBO,
    >HDNET, etc.) will likely remain in MPEG2 for quite some time. So I suspect
    >the force swap of recievers won't be needed until 2007 or so when all the
    >channels move off of MPEG2 to MPEG4. By then you probably won't much care
    >that your current reciever needs to be swapped out.
    >
    ....

    ALL DirecTV channels moving to MPEG4 in 2007 or some other year is
    no more than speculation.

    When has DirecTV obsoleted a receiver in the past? It is unlikely
    that all channels from DirecTV will become HD or be transmitted only
    in MPEG4.

    DirecTV does provide receiver upgrades at minimal expense but isn't
    likely to make current (non-HD) receivers or DVRs obsolete.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bbodin wrote:
    > Here's my understanding...take it for what it's worth as I'm no expert (for
    > more info go to http://www.avsforum.com/) and the HDTV programming section
    >
    > they are moving to MPEG4 and yes, your reciever will be obsolete when they
    > do. The reality is that DirectTV will almost assuredly do a receiver swap
    > when you must move to MPEG4. Whether that new MPEG4 reciever is comparable
    > to your current is I guess the big ?. They also have this HD DVR home
    > networking solution which appears pretty neat on paper, so maybe if you have
    > an HD Tivo they'll subsidize it with a swap of the new HD DVR????
    >
    > But when that change will happen is I guess a big ?. This fall they are
    > releasing HD locals for the top 12 DMAs I believe. I'm sure those will be
    > in MPEG4. If you want or need those, my guess is you'd need a reciever
    > that can do MPEG4, though I could be wrong. But the rest of your HD (HBO,
    > HDNET, etc.) will likely remain in MPEG2 for quite some time. So I suspect
    > the force swap of recievers won't be needed until 2007 or so when all the
    > channels move off of MPEG2 to MPEG4. By then you probably won't much care
    > that your current reciever needs to be swapped out.
    >
    > I think HD locals are their priorty right now, but there was rumors on the
    > forum I mentioned above that with this new satellite launch they intend to
    > add some new non-locals HD (Starz, INHD, etc.) though it's all rumors as of
    > now.
    >
    > "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:TTmwe.1045402$w62.103728@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    >>Directv is launching two more satellites in 2007. A satellite Directv just
    >>launched is supposed to be operational this fall. At some point, Directv
    >
    > is
    >
    >>supposed to be moving from an MPEG2 compression technology to and MPEG4
    >>compression technology (renders current MPEG2 recievers obsolete). I am
    >>concerned that my HD reciever might become obsolete. Will it the MPEG
    >>transition happen in fall or in 2007? When this transition is supposed to
    >>occur is a closely guarded secret or I was jsut unable to find out
    >
    > anything
    >
    >>about it on the web. I did read something that Directv is intending to
    >
    > add
    >
    >>more local channels. Anyway I probably have a lot of this wrong. What is
    >>supposed to happen this fall? What kind of new channels will we get? Will
    >>they be using MPEG4 compression technology?
    >>
    >>noone
    >>


    I'd like to see an FX HD channel at somepoint. They have some great
    orginal shows. I'm sure most of them are being done for HD anyway.


    Steve
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:40:17 GMT, Jack Ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

    >ALL DirecTV channels moving to MPEG4 in 2007 or some other year is
    >no more than speculation.
    >
    >When has DirecTV obsoleted a receiver in the past? It is unlikely
    >that all channels from DirecTV will become HD or be transmitted only
    >in MPEG4.
    >
    >DirecTV does provide receiver upgrades at minimal expense but isn't
    >likely to make current (non-HD) receivers or DVRs obsolete.
    >


    It may not be obsolete, but it would mean that there will channels
    that won't be able to be received without a new dish and receiver.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Thanks for the information on what is happening this fall. HD locals a
    priority? I was hoping for more HD channels.

    I asked this question about the receiver going obsolete at the place where I
    bought the HD reciever. They install satellite dishs. They really didn't
    know much about it, but they did point out that Directv would go out of
    business if they had to swap out receivers or if the recievers went
    obsolete, so the idea of swapping out receivers is probably unrealistic from
    a financial standpoint. I did call directv and they said my reciever would
    not be obsolete in the fall; however I did not have any confidence in that
    the person knew what they were talking about.

    Thanks again,
    noone


    "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net> wrote in message
    news:0Anwe.626$Ox3.388@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    > Here's my understanding...take it for what it's worth as I'm no expert
    (for
    > more info go to http://www.avsforum.com/) and the HDTV programming section
    >
    > they are moving to MPEG4 and yes, your reciever will be obsolete when they
    > do. The reality is that DirectTV will almost assuredly do a receiver swap
    > when you must move to MPEG4. Whether that new MPEG4 reciever is
    comparable
    > to your current is I guess the big ?. They also have this HD DVR home
    > networking solution which appears pretty neat on paper, so maybe if you
    have
    > an HD Tivo they'll subsidize it with a swap of the new HD DVR????
    >
    > But when that change will happen is I guess a big ?. This fall they are
    > releasing HD locals for the top 12 DMAs I believe. I'm sure those will be
    > in MPEG4. If you want or need those, my guess is you'd need a reciever
    > that can do MPEG4, though I could be wrong. But the rest of your HD (HBO,
    > HDNET, etc.) will likely remain in MPEG2 for quite some time. So I
    suspect
    > the force swap of recievers won't be needed until 2007 or so when all the
    > channels move off of MPEG2 to MPEG4. By then you probably won't much care
    > that your current reciever needs to be swapped out.
    >
    > I think HD locals are their priorty right now, but there was rumors on the
    > forum I mentioned above that with this new satellite launch they intend to
    > add some new non-locals HD (Starz, INHD, etc.) though it's all rumors as
    of
    > now.
    >
    > "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:TTmwe.1045402$w62.103728@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > Directv is launching two more satellites in 2007. A satellite Directv
    just
    > > launched is supposed to be operational this fall. At some point,
    Directv
    > is
    > > supposed to be moving from an MPEG2 compression technology to and MPEG4
    > > compression technology (renders current MPEG2 recievers obsolete). I am
    > > concerned that my HD reciever might become obsolete. Will it the MPEG
    > > transition happen in fall or in 2007? When this transition is supposed
    to
    > > occur is a closely guarded secret or I was jsut unable to find out
    > anything
    > > about it on the web. I did read something that Directv is intending to
    > add
    > > more local channels. Anyway I probably have a lot of this wrong. What is
    > > supposed to happen this fall? What kind of new channels will we get?
    Will
    > > they be using MPEG4 compression technology?
    > >
    > > noone
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jack Ak" <akjack@excite.com> wrote in message

    > ALL DirecTV channels moving to MPEG4 in 2007 or some other year is
    > no more than speculation.
    >
    > When has DirecTV obsoleted a receiver in the past? It is unlikely
    > that all channels from DirecTV will become HD or be transmitted only
    > in MPEG4.

    I was referring to HD channels (since it's an HD forum), although it's
    likely to assume that all channels will migrate to MPEG4 (why have 2
    technologies) especially when they can get rid of the current compression on
    SD channels given that new available bandwidth?
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:x5ywe.1048438$w62.797180@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Thanks for the information on what is happening this fall. HD locals a
    > priority? I was hoping for more HD channels.

    I think most of us agree. At least in my case I can get my local HD OTA so
    HD LIL is not that important to me, though I know that's not true for
    everyone. The reality is, DirectTV really must focus on the locals in order
    to compete with cable (who already have HD Locals in those citys).

    > I asked this question about the receiver going obsolete at the place where
    I
    > bought the HD reciever. They install satellite dishs. They really didn't
    > know much about it, but they did point out that Directv would go out of
    > business if they had to swap out receivers or if the recievers went
    > obsolete,

    That's not really accurate. DirectTV practically gives them away for free
    now (I think you can get the Hughes HD for < $100 now) and the non-hd ones
    in most cases ARE free now for 1 year commitments. They make their money on
    your programming commitment and a year or 2 commitment for a receiver swap
    will more than make up for the money they lose in the hardware cost. That's
    also not to say that they will do a complete swap, maybe they allow you to
    swap in an old one and get a new one for $50 or something, but I doubt that
    will be the case if the old ones are really obsolete.

    While I was posting this, found a couple of articles that seem related

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=551441&highlight=MPEG4
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=550622


    > I did call directv and they said my reciever would
    > not be obsolete in the fall; however I did not have any confidence in that
    > the person knew what they were talking about.

    If it was a CSR then you're right to not have any confidence in them...they
    generally don't know anything and you get more info from the forum I posted
    above.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2ccc0c4ffbf47989e18@news.nabs.net...
    > Since everybody would already have a new
    > receiver, I don't see how there would be any complaints.

    well if the new recievers weren't comparable to the ones you have I'm sure
    there would be complaints. I myself paid $800 for my HD reciever at the
    time and it has very good HD quality. I've heard several people that
    compared their reciever to some of the "cheaper" ones (like the Hughes) say
    that the quality is noticeably different since the newer ones use a cheaper
    technology. And of course there are the things like caller id, etc that 1
    reciever may have and the replacement may not...I can see cases where people
    would be upset regardless.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net> wrote in message
    news:s9ywe.756$U61.743@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

    > I was referring to HD channels (since it's an HD forum), although it's
    > likely to assume that all channels will migrate to MPEG4 (why have 2
    > technologies) especially when they can get rid of the current compression
    > on
    > SD channels given that new available bandwidth?

    Don't assume ANY provider will reduce or "get rid" of compression for any
    reason. These providers have all done research that shows them how much
    compression the average viewer will put up with. With that statistic
    determined they then use any additional capacity or throughput gains to
    provide more channels not higher quality. Voom is really the only provider
    that I can recall ever selling quality of signal over quantity of signal and
    unfortunately there were not enough takers. All the other companies will
    brag about "all digital or digital signal" but heck...I can hold up my
    middle finger and claim the same thing. It means almost nothing.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net> wrote in message
    news:s9ywe.756$U61.743@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

    > I was referring to HD channels (since it's an HD forum), although it's
    > likely to assume that all channels will migrate to MPEG4 (why have 2
    > technologies) especially when they can get rid of the current compression
    > on
    > SD channels given that new available bandwidth?

    Don't assume ANY provider will reduce or "get rid" of compression for any
    reason. These providers have all done research that shows them how much
    compression the average viewer will put up with. With that statistic
    determined they then use any additional capacity or throughput gains to
    provide more channels not higher quality. Voom is really the only provider
    that I can recall ever selling quality of signal over quantity of signal and
    unfortunately there were not enough takers. All the other companies will
    brag about "all digital or digital signal" but heck...I can hold up my
    middle finger and claim the same thing. It means almost nothing.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > I myself paid $800 for my HD reciever at the
    > time and it has very good HD quality. I've heard several people that
    > compared their reciever to some of the "cheaper" ones (like the Hughes) say
    > that the quality is noticeably different since the newer ones use a cheaper
    > technology. And of course there are the things like caller id, etc that 1
    > reciever may have and the replacement may not...I can see cases where people
    > would be upset regardless.

    If people are upset because their new, free receivers that get more
    channels than the old ones aren't good enough, I suspect that DirecTV's
    attitude would be that they can cancel their service.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Apr/columbine.html
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message

    > If people are upset because their new, free receivers that get more
    > channels than the old ones aren't good enough, I suspect that DirecTV's
    > attitude would be that they can cancel their service.

    I'm sure that would be there attitude, but they're not exactly free are
    they? I bought my $800 reciever and they are forcing a replace of that. So
    you can't see why some people would be upset they paid $800-$1k for a
    reciever that is being forced replaced with a lower quality, lower feature
    reciever? I don't care if it does get more channels, that would get some
    people upset. (not that I'm saying the new recievers will be less quaility
    or features or that I'd care by then about the $800 since I've gotten plenty
    of use out of it before the replacement...but my thinking's not always in
    line with others).

    But you're right, directTV's attitude will definitely be "TS".
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net> wrote in message
    news:RjTwe.1219$U61.593@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    >
    >> If people are upset because their new, free receivers that get more
    >> channels than the old ones aren't good enough, I suspect that DirecTV's
    >> attitude would be that they can cancel their service.
    >
    > I'm sure that would be there attitude, but they're not exactly free are
    > they? I bought my $800 reciever and they are forcing a replace of that.
    > So
    > you can't see why some people would be upset they paid $800-$1k for a
    > reciever that is being forced replaced with a lower quality, lower feature
    > reciever? I don't care if it does get more channels, that would get some
    > people upset. (not that I'm saying the new recievers will be less
    > quaility
    > or features or that I'd care by then about the $800 since I've gotten
    > plenty
    > of use out of it before the replacement...but my thinking's not always in
    > line with others).
    >
    > But you're right, directTV's attitude will definitely be "TS".
    >
    >

    My guess on what DTV may do is have a "basic" hd & HDDvr units they will
    tradeup free and then an additional more "Top of Line" type line of units
    that you can up to for small fee instead. That way they can cover everyone
    on the Mpeg4 front but also make some coin off of ppl who want that extra
    qulity or features(for example maybe basic tradeup only has 80g hd and the
    buy-up160g or something). I'm just waiting for August when whatever deals
    they have are officially out. Been some comments at AVS and in fact I spoke
    with someone at DTV today that also said they had some kind of equip deal
    coming then but I want to see the actual offers
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > I'm sure that would be there attitude, but they're not exactly free are
    > they? I bought my $800 reciever and they are forcing a replace of that.

    ....and they will do so for free, so you don't lose anything.

    > So
    > you can't see why some people would be upset they paid $800-$1k for a
    > reciever that is being forced replaced with a lower quality, lower feature
    > reciever?

    I see no indication that newer receivers are lower quality or that they
    have less features. The new ones will likely have DirecTV interactive
    features, which most old receivers do not.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoHelpDesk.jpg
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2e0dab6058a0c989e21@news.nabs.net...
    > bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > > I'm sure that would be there attitude, but they're not exactly free are
    > > they? I bought my $800 reciever and they are forcing a replace of that.
    >
    > ...and they will do so for free, so you don't lose anything.

    I guess we're not on the same page.

    Person A buys a reciever for $800 and was willing to pay more since when
    compared to other cheaper recievers at the time it had better quality and
    features.

    Person B makes a purchase at the same time and pays $100 because he doesn't
    really care about those extra features or quality

    August 200X comes around and DirectTV tells both customers...you get this
    brand new reciever that's equivalent to the $100 Person B bought, but with
    MPEG4. We'll do the swap for free!

    You feel persona A didn't lose anything? I'd say he'd lost $700 because he
    now has the same reciever that person B has and person B only paid $100.

    > I see no indication that newer receivers are lower quality

    Compare a sony HD300 with and HD200 and HD100 and then make that comment.
    There is a definite indication of lower quality as the manufacturers move to
    cheaper chipsets to get the costs down.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    news:UMadnXeFHLaThlnfRVn-
    > Don't assume ANY provider will reduce or "get rid" of compression for any
    > reason. These providers have all done research that shows them how much
    > compression the average viewer will put up with. With that statistic
    > determined they then use any additional capacity or throughput gains to
    > provide more channels not higher quality. Voom is really the only provider
    > that I can recall ever selling quality of signal over quantity of signal
    and
    > unfortunately there were not enough takers. All the other companies will
    > brag about "all digital or digital signal" but heck...I can hold up my
    > middle finger and claim the same thing. It means almost nothing.


    agree. But I guess if they have the bandwidth WHY WOULDN'T they take
    advantage of it. If it's just sitting there doing nothing, it would be one
    more selling point to potential customers "Hey, we have Local HD and high
    quaility SD...comcast compresses the hell out of their SD...come to us".
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > Person A buys a reciever for $800 and was willing to pay more since when
    > compared to other cheaper recievers at the time it had better quality and
    > features.
    >
    > Person B makes a purchase at the same time and pays $100 because he doesn't
    > really care about those extra features or quality
    >
    > August 200X comes around and DirectTV tells both customers...you get this
    > brand new reciever that's equivalent to the $100 Person B bought, but with
    > MPEG4. We'll do the swap for free!

    Well, if that's the way they were going to do things, then, yeah, it'd be
    a problem. But the reality is that you won't get a $100 SD-only receiver
    to replace your $800 HD receiver. It may only be a $250 HD receiver
    because that's all they cost now, but that's not DirecTV's fault.

    Anything with MPEG-4 will be HD-capable, so your comparison isn't valid,
    anyway, because DirecTV *won't* be giving away HD-capable receivers to
    people who don't already have them...at least not for quite a while.

    > You feel persona A didn't lose anything? I'd say he'd lost $700 because he
    > now has the same reciever that person B has and person B only paid $100.

    If both users get the "top of the line" receiver, then I wouldn't say
    "A" has lost anything, but rather that "B" has gotten something for free.

    > Compare a sony HD300 with and HD200 and HD100 and then make that comment.
    > There is a definite indication of lower quality as the manufacturers move to
    > cheaper chipsets to get the costs down.

    That's because those manufacturers wanted to make a profit on the
    receivers. DirecTV doesn't care about that, at least not compared to
    customer satisfaction.

    --
    Jeff Rife | "As we sit here and idly chat, women--female
    | human beings--are rolling around in strange
    | beds with strange men, and *we* are making money
    | from that."
    | "Is this a great country, or what?"
    | -- "Night Shift"
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net> wrote in message
    news:HEZwe.1298$U61.803@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
    > news:UMadnXeFHLaThlnfRVn-
    >> Don't assume ANY provider will reduce or "get rid" of compression for any
    >> reason. These providers have all done research that shows them how much
    >> compression the average viewer will put up with. With that statistic
    >> determined they then use any additional capacity or throughput gains to
    >> provide more channels not higher quality. Voom is really the only
    >> provider
    >> that I can recall ever selling quality of signal over quantity of signal
    > and
    >> unfortunately there were not enough takers. All the other companies will
    >> brag about "all digital or digital signal" but heck...I can hold up my
    >> middle finger and claim the same thing. It means almost nothing.
    >
    >
    > agree. But I guess if they have the bandwidth WHY WOULDN'T they take
    > advantage of it. If it's just sitting there doing nothing, it would be
    > one
    > more selling point to potential customers "Hey, we have Local HD and high
    > quaility SD...comcast compresses the hell out of their SD...come to us".

    Because they would rather say we give you more channels for the same price.
    Quantity over quality is all these companies seem to think that people want.
    If I could pay the same price for 1/2 the channels at 1/2 the compression I
    would....but they aren't asking me.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Rife wrote:
    > I see no indication that newer receivers are lower quality or that they
    > have less features. The new ones will likely have DirecTV interactive
    > features, which most old receivers do not.

    I agree. Generally, most of the time with technology, newer = better,
    faster, more features, cheaper price. For the most part, in my
    experience this has been true. On occasion it isn't, but mostly it is.
    I wouldn't be too worried about new equipment.

    I'm just wondering what they will do in my case, since the HD DTV
    receiver is INSIDE the TV! Maybe I'll just get a discount on a DTV HD
    DVR?

    Hope so! ;-)
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Steve K. (steve@nodamnspam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > I'm just wondering what they will do in my case, since the HD DTV
    > receiver is INSIDE the TV!

    I'm in the same boat. I just hope that DirecTV delays getting any "must
    have" MPEG-4 channels until I want a new TV anyway.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/GoldenRetriever.gif
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2e6e5ae8bb4c12989e28@news.nabs.net...
    > bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > Well, if that's the way they were going to do things, then, yeah, it'd be
    > a problem. But the reality is that you won't get a $100 SD-only receiver
    > to replace your $800 HD receiver. It may only be a $250 HD receiver
    > because that's all they cost now, but that's not DirecTV's fault.
    >
    > Anything with MPEG-4 will be HD-capable, so your comparison isn't valid,
    > anyway, because DirecTV *won't* be giving away HD-capable receivers to
    > people who don't already have them...at least not for quite a while.

    I don't get the comparison here. I was speaking only about HD recievers.

    > If both users get the "top of the line" receiver, then I wouldn't say
    > "A" has lost anything, but rather that "B" has gotten something for free.

    That's assuming the replacement is "top of the line". My whole argument is
    based on the fact that it won't be. The example is when I bought my
    reciever, the top of the line HD reciever would have been an HD200 and a
    lower end would have been the Hughes HD reciever (the $800 to $100 analogy I
    used). There is a definite quality difference between the 2 even though both
    are HD. You plug both in to the same TV and the picture quality is much
    better on the HD200 because of the better encoder.

    I'm suggesting that if DirecTV is forced to do a reciever swap they will
    take the cheapest route and in the scenario about everyone would be getting
    the Hughes HD equivalent reciever. That's great and it does do HD, but the
    person who had the HD200 (and paid $800 for it) will plug in his new "free"
    reciever and say "This looks like HD-lite to me...where was that 'looking
    through the window' feel I had". Regardless of how many channels they roll
    out, that person has lost and will be upset...that's all I'm saying.

    Now the person who had the cheaper Hughes will get the new one and not know
    any difference so he won't complain (just like those people who joined D* in
    the past couple of years are satisfied with their SD quality while those
    that saw what it was like before the compression started are continually
    pissed).
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    > > Anything with MPEG-4 will be HD-capable, so your comparison isn't valid,
    > > anyway, because DirecTV *won't* be giving away HD-capable receivers to
    > > people who don't already have them...at least not for quite a while.
    >
    > I don't get the comparison here. I was speaking only about HD recievers.

    That's my point...there are no $100 HD receivers.

    > > If both users get the "top of the line" receiver, then I wouldn't say
    > > "A" has lost anything, but rather that "B" has gotten something for free.
    >
    > That's assuming the replacement is "top of the line". My whole argument is
    > based on the fact that it won't be. The example is when I bought my
    > reciever, the top of the line HD reciever would have been an HD200 and a
    > lower end would have been the Hughes HD reciever (the $800 to $100 analogy I
    > used).

    That would be an OK analogy if the Hughes was:
    - ever $100
    - $100 at the same time the Sony was $800

    > I'm suggesting that if DirecTV is forced to do a reciever swap they will
    > take the cheapest route and in the scenario about everyone would be getting
    > the Hughes HD equivalent reciever.

    You keep bitching about the Hughes HD receiver, yet I saw no quality
    difference between it, the DTC-100 built into my RCA F38310, and the
    HR10-250 HD DirecTiVo. Now, they all have different features, and the HD
    DirecTiVo is missing some things that previous receivers had (like multiple
    "Favorites" lists and Caller ID), but it's sure not a step *down* by any
    means.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFriendly/SPAMOurCustomers.gif
  23. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:05:44 GMT, "bbodin" <nospam!bbodin@airmail.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
    >news:MPG.1d2e6e5ae8bb4c12989e28@news.nabs.net...
    >> bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    >> Well, if that's the way they were going to do things, then, yeah, it'd be
    >> a problem. But the reality is that you won't get a $100 SD-only receiver
    >> to replace your $800 HD receiver. It may only be a $250 HD receiver
    >> because that's all they cost now, but that's not DirecTV's fault.
    >>
    >> Anything with MPEG-4 will be HD-capable, so your comparison isn't valid,
    >> anyway, because DirecTV *won't* be giving away HD-capable receivers to
    >> people who don't already have them...at least not for quite a while.
    >
    >I don't get the comparison here. I was speaking only about HD recievers.
    >
    >> If both users get the "top of the line" receiver, then I wouldn't say
    >> "A" has lost anything, but rather that "B" has gotten something for free.
    >
    >That's assuming the replacement is "top of the line". My whole argument is
    >based on the fact that it won't be. The example is when I bought my
    >reciever, the top of the line HD reciever would have been an HD200 and a
    >lower end would have been the Hughes HD reciever (the $800 to $100 analogy I
    >used). There is a definite quality difference between the 2 even though both
    >are HD. You plug both in to the same TV and the picture quality is much
    >better on the HD200 because of the better encoder.

    Why does the HD receiver need an encoder? The HD signal is compressed
    at the source.

    >
    > I'm suggesting that if DirecTV is forced to do a reciever swap they will
    >take the cheapest route and in the scenario about everyone would be getting
    >the Hughes HD equivalent reciever. That's great and it does do HD, but the
    >person who had the HD200 (and paid $800 for it) will plug in his new "free"
    >reciever and say "This looks like HD-lite to me...where was that 'looking
    >through the window' feel I had". Regardless of how many channels they roll
    >out, that person has lost and will be upset...that's all I'm saying.
    >
    >Now the person who had the cheaper Hughes will get the new one and not know
    >any difference so he won't complain (just like those people who joined D* in
    >the past couple of years are satisfied with their SD quality while those
    >that saw what it was like before the compression started are continually
    >pissed).
    >
    >
    ....

    DirecTV signals have always been compressed. The compression
    technology has been improved over the past 6 years.

    I have owned a total of 4 DirecTV receivers. The first one cost about
    $350 in 1999, a Sony SAT-A4. The second one was a Hughes model
    costing $49. There is no difference in picture or sound quality
    between these two receivers.

    Both of these receivers were retired in favor of two DirecTV DVRs
    which cost a total of $200 including a free dish. The DirecTV DVRs
    have better picture quality than our older DTV receivers.
    That might be a result of improved picture quality from DirecTV
    since the old receivers were retired. Our largest TV screen size is
    27 inches.

    The one feature the Sony has which is missing from the later boxes
    is the RF remote. I fixed that omission with a purchase of the RF
    Remote Extender from Bluedo.com...
    http://www.bluedo.com/bluedocgi/product.cgi?model=RR-X300

    I'm looking forward to a $99 HD DVR from DirecTV, not for HD
    but for higher recording capacity on standard definition programming.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d2f8e45fa266dd6989e31@news.nabs.net:

    > bbodin (nospam!bbodin@airmail.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
    >> > Anything with MPEG-4 will be HD-capable, so your comparison isn't
    >> > valid, anyway, because DirecTV *won't* be giving away HD-capable
    >> > receivers to people who don't already have them...at least not for
    >> > quite a while.
    >>
    >> I don't get the comparison here. I was speaking only about HD
    >> recievers.
    >
    > That's my point...there are no $100 HD receivers.
    >
    >> > If both users get the "top of the line" receiver, then I wouldn't
    >> > say "A" has lost anything, but rather that "B" has gotten something
    >> > for free.
    >>
    >> That's assuming the replacement is "top of the line". My whole
    >> argument is based on the fact that it won't be. The example is when
    >> I bought my reciever, the top of the line HD reciever would have been
    >> an HD200 and a lower end would have been the Hughes HD reciever (the
    >> $800 to $100 analogy I used).
    >
    > That would be an OK analogy if the Hughes was:
    > - ever $100
    > - $100 at the same time the Sony was $800
    >
    >> I'm suggesting that if DirecTV is forced to do a reciever swap they
    >> will
    >> take the cheapest route and in the scenario about everyone would be
    >> getting the Hughes HD equivalent reciever.
    >
    > You keep bitching about the Hughes HD receiver, yet I saw no quality
    > difference between it, the DTC-100 built into my RCA F38310, and the
    > HR10-250 HD DirecTiVo. Now, they all have different features, and the
    > HD DirecTiVo is missing some things that previous receivers had (like
    > multiple "Favorites" lists and Caller ID), but it's sure not a step
    > *down* by any means.
    >

    Dish network looks better and better
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV Compression Home Theatre