# Does mpeg4 mean no more 129?



## skibama (Jun 13, 2007)

Hi, this is my first post, but I have been lurking for a while. I've tried to decipher a lot of this information regarding the switch to mpeg4, but I can't seem to find the answer to my question.
Anyway, a month or so ago, as soon as the trees started to fill in, I lost all signal from 129 (I have a 622 and a 211 by the way). I get a great signal from 110 and 119, but no 129. I'm assuming it's the trees because I was fine up until they filled in. Anyway, my option is either to cut down one tree and hope that that will take care of the problem...which i'm not sure it will, or my next question. When E* goes all mpeg4, will this fix my problem of not being able to see 129? From what I can understand, I will only have to see two sats to get HD, right? I know some of you have mentioned getting a second dish, but will the upcoming switch fix my problem? Thanks for the help. I hope I've explained my problem clearly here.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It is possible that Dish may put MPEG4 satellites in a different part of the sky, but we have only speculation as to where they MIGHT be.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

According to Charlie Ergen at Team Summit ALL present offerings in sd and hd spread out over all those different satellites presently , will be available in mpeg 4 , on one 18 " Satellite dish using one coax cable into your house. This will happen when they launch two new sats by December ,with new service in mpeg 4 by spring at the latest. WE don't know where officially where the two new sats will be but they are "rumored " to be at 86.5 and 97. When this happens, yes , it will solve all your problems with the need for 129 or 61.5. I wish DISH would just tell us officially where the two new sats will be and if we will need new lnbs , dishes, repoints ,etc.


----------



## skibama (Jun 13, 2007)

Well then, here's a question for you...How much better does having two dishes work than only one. If I were to get a separate dish for 129, would that help, or am I still out of luck with the tree. To me, the tree seems barely in the way so maybe another dish will help.


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

skibama said:


> Well then, here's a question for you...How much better does having two dishes work than only one. If I were to get a separate dish for 129, would that help, or am I still out of luck with the tree. To me, the tree seems barely in the way so maybe another dish will help.


The separate dish would allow you to put that dish where you can get your signal. If you can find a spot, it is also easier to point to one sat than to three. It also does not have to be close the to first dish either. Having trees alway complicates where dish(es) can be placed.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> It is possible that Dish may put MPEG4 satellites in a different part of the sky, but we have only speculation as to where they MIGHT be.


Jim,

There is no such thing as MPEG4 satellites. MPEG4 is a compression algorithm. Any Satellites Dish has in orbit now or in the future can use MPEG4.

Dish could split up their content all over the map with some MPEG4 on all satellites or just a few or none if they wished. MPEG4 does allow for much more efficient bandwidth allocation and use.

Over time Both DirecTV and Dish are likely to migrate all channels to MPEG4. At the moment Dish is only starting to migrate HD channels to MPEG4. Within the next year or so, I highly doubt Dish will offer any HD channels in MPEG2.

With all that said, Dish has announced a Total MPEG4 service, but which satellite slots that are going to be used and when this will launch has not been determined, except for a vague time frame of December 07 to early 08. I'd bet that time frame will slip to second quarter next year.

John


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I used the term MPEG4 satellites because those two satellites are to have MPEG4 content exclusively, both SD and HD, all programming in MPEG4 ONLY.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

skibama said:


> Anyway, a month or so ago, as soon as the trees started to fill in, I lost all signal from 129 (I have a 622 and a 211 by the way). I get a great signal from 110 and 119, but no 129.


Why not put up a dish for 61.5? The 61.5 satellite has all the national HD content that 129 has.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Bill R said:


> Why not put up a dish for 61.5? The 61.5 satellite has all the national HD content that 129 has.


He is in Atlanta... and the Atlanta HD locals are on 129 only. Also, his RSN (FOX Sports South) in HD is also only on 129... so pointing to 61.5 in Atlanta would lose several channels in HD for him that he might want.


----------



## DishSubLA (Apr 9, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> I used the term MPEG4 satellites because those two satellites are to have MPEG4 content exclusively, both SD and HD, all programming in MPEG4 ONLY.


I, for one, understood exactly what you meant.


----------



## skibama (Jun 13, 2007)

I understood too, but thanks for the advice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"MPEG4 satellites" is a touchy term because newbies might get confused and think that there is a difference between satellites or transponders used for MPEG4 vs MPEG2. A clarification isn't a bad thing.

Now we're clear, back to topic.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

HDMe said:


> He is in Atlanta... and the Atlanta HD locals are on 129 only. Also, his RSN (FOX Sports South) in HD is also only on 129... so pointing to 61.5 in Atlanta would lose several channels in HD for him that he might want.


Yes, I realize that but a 61.5 dish would allow him to get all his NATIONAL HD channels back.


----------



## nazz (May 4, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> on one 18 " Satellite dish using one coax cable into your house.


Does this mean that you can then split that inside the house to any receiver that you need to? My current setup requires three lines from the dish on the roof.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nazz said:


> Does this mean that you can then split that inside the house to any receiver that you need to?


You cannot "split" a cable. You either have a cable for each receiver directly from the dish or you have a cable for each satellite from the dish(es) running to a switch and a cable from there to each receiver.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

nazz said:


> Does this mean that you can then split that inside the house to any receiver that you need to? My current setup requires three lines from the dish on the roof.


 I imagine he means that you can run one sat coax into your house that can be split into two sat cables using the dishpro plus seperator. But then again we don't know yet if the new dish will be using the same dishpro plus lnbs like today or not.


----------



## CALI_WATCHER (Mar 22, 2007)

The 2nd Dish should help in a couple of ways.. one it could be positioned in another part of your house away from the trees (if possible). 

You can try to get 129 and if that does not work, get the 61.5 dish to at least get VOOM content,etc. Plus on 61.5 you get some international "free" stations too... So the second dish would allow you to try to get either 129 or 61.5 The 129 is always pretty week on the 1000.2 since


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nazz said:


> Does this mean that you can then split that inside the house to any receiver that you need to? My current setup requires three lines from the dish on the roof.


IF the new MPEG4 system turns out to be from two single satellite location (in other words, one MPEG4 satellite for the east and one MPEG4 satellite for the west instead of a Dish500 set up) they could use a single DishPro feed that could be split within the house.

As mentioned before, E* has not spelled out the details - just a casual mention of the service. It could be anything until the details are released.


----------

