# 11/14/2005 Tech Chat Recap



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

Welcome to the tech chat with Mark and Dan.



First off is a new update for the 942. You can now use your 942 to display Jpg Pictures. All you have to do is plug your Mass Storage Device digital camera and the 942 and if it recongizes the camera, you will be prompted to import the pictures. The pictures will be converted to show on your TV. You can then show a slide show. You can also use a USB key, it will import picture. Pictures cannot be downloaded from the 942. 



Pocket Dish is available. All models are in stock. Check the dish website for more details. Apple just came out with the Video I-pod. It plays low quality video where the Pocket Dish does the same quality you get from the satellite. Also, you have to pay for the content from apple, where dish doesn’t charge extra for downloading content from the DVR to Pocket Dish at the current time. The 522 and 625 will be able to download content to pocket dish in the future, but at a slower rate.



Rebates available: from November 15, 2005 to April 15, 2006

AV402E - $20.00

AV500E - $40.00

AV700E - $60.00



Giveaway – “Pocket Dish can receive software updates. What are the 2 ways it can receive updates”. 1st Caller. Win a AV500E - winner is Renda Hutchison – Either connect to the 942 or download from pocketdish.com



Mpeg 4 Information. There is a lot of talk on the Chat and Talk groups about what E* is doing about more HD proramming. E* wants to be the leader in HD programming. Mpeg 4 will get its first start. But there is more than just Mpeg4, they have 8psk-turbo, new satellites and dish 1000. Issue with mpeg4 is that they can build an mpeg4 set top box but there isn’t any encoders that can deliver the true bandwidth savings at this time. Currently they can only get 20% savings. Over time will get better. Currently think that 8psk-turbo can get them 30-40% bandwidth savings currently. Already have 10-12 million receivers that can do 8psk. Also have new satellite slot at 129 location. With dish 1000 can receive 3 orbital locations. Echo 10 will give more spot beams for HD locals. Because of all these things E* will be rolling out Mpeg4 much slower than their competitors. Also, a new receiver know as the 411/211 will be released soon. It is equivalent to the 811 today.



Question – Are current receivers upgradeable to Mpeg-4. No.



Question - Will the 921 be able to connect with Pocket Dish? Not supported via USB, but you can do real-time transfer via the composite/S-video cable. (This would be true for all dish DVR’s BTW). XDS ( extended data service) is still be investigated for the 921. 





Remote Control stuff: Use 3 types of communication. First is IR. Must be in the same room. 2nd is UHF. Can send signals up to 100’, 3rd is UHF Pro which can send 200’. To improve UHF reception you can install 3-5’ lengths of RG6 between the receiver and the antenna to improve reception. You can also use an attenuator. To convert a IR system to UHF you can get an IR to UHF convert kit for $49.00. You can also get an easy remote if you need something less complicated for $19.00.



More questions: 



E-mail. “Just called tech support because guide was showing info unavailable.  Tech said to reboot the receiver which restored the data. Tech said the dish DVR’s must be off to receive guide data updates. I told here that that wasn’t my experience, tech said I had old information.” Answer. The receiver should go to inactivity standby which will allow it to download guide. You can also put it into manual standby. 



E-mail. Has a new HD TV and 811 but can’t tell if he has HD. Make sure your hooked up to Component or DVI input on your TV. Also make sure that your on the correct resolution (1080i/720p). Check aspect ratio. Tune to an HD channel 9420-94?? or HD OTA channel. Also check the lights on the 921/811 for HD/SD Mode. 942 outputs HD all the time.



E-mail. What satellite does a dish have to point to get VOOM HD? 61.5 and 129. if your North-east of Washington DC, you will have to use 61.5.



Dual Tuner Receiver. If you have a receiver with 2 remotes with 1 green tab and 1 blue tab, you have a dual tuner receiver. These can be run in dual mode or single mode. Single mode can be hooked up to 1 (or more TV’s watching the same programming) you can have PIP. If your in Dual mode you can hook up 1 TV with the receiver and use the RF output to watch a different program on a remote TV using the UHF remote. In dual mode you can set the receiver to use “Record Plus” so it will record programs on TV2 first.



Give away another Pocket Dish, a 7” model. “What 3 satellite locations was the Dish 1000 designed to look at”. Easy – 119,110,129 – John won.



Software Updates. 625. Dish on Demand now available. Select the DVR button, Select either My Recordings or Movies & more. If you select “Movies and More”. From there you can select the movie you want to watch. You can see previews. Price ranges from 2.99 and 5.99. Can watch as many times as you want for 4 hours. Will be on other models soon.



New Episodes DVR option upgraded. Guide now data now has date first aired available. If it is there, it will use that to determine if it is a new episode. If not available, the dvr will still record based on year of show just to be safe.



All Episodes DVR options record every episode.



Dish pass lets you input search criteria to record programming. There is also a feature to limit the number of events can be on HDD.



DVR history is on 522/625 has a clear history option.

You can Edit the name of a recorded event.



E-mail. Screen saver on DVR? Takes several hours to burn in a set. Pause buffer is only an hour on most receivers, 2 on some. No problems.



E-mail. Has a 501, only 30 hours. Can he upgrade the HDD. No. Have to upgrade the receiver. Hardware restrictions 942 WILL BE GETTING EXTERNAL USB HDD SOON. IN BETA NOW???? (I’m excited about this one).



E-mail. Dish 1000 getting 3 satellites? How does it work when you have 2 tuner rceivers and 2 receivers in another room. Dish 1000 uses Dish Pro Plus and hook up dual tuner receivers using a separator. Also can get a DPP44.



E-mail. Name based recording for 501/508/510. Complicated upgrade, is in alpha testing now. Should be out early next year, maybe in January.



Caller: Can I delete recording history on 942. Should be out in 942 in January. On 522/625 now.



E-mail. E-10. When is it going up. Scheduled to launch 1st quarter. Available in June. Going to the 110 location. 



Out of time.


----------



## logray (Apr 8, 2005)

Allen Noland said:


> ...E-mail. "Just called tech support because guide was showing info unavailable. Tech said to reboot the receiver which restored the data. Tech said the dish DVR's must be off to receive guide data updates. I told her that that wasn't my experience, tech said I had old information." Answer. The receiver should go to inactivity standby which will allow it to download guide. You can also put it into manual standby...


They conveniently failed to mention if this is an 811 they probably ran into the "No Info" bug... probably because the 811 will soon be replaced by a new model! :nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

logray said:


> They conveniently failed to mention if this is an 811 they probably ran into the "No Info" bug... probably because the 811 will soon be replaced by a new model! :nono2:


The 811 isn't a DVR, so they were not referring to an 811. 

JL


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

OK, so they have really muddled the whole MPEG4 thing with this 8psk-turbo crap (which where in the hell did this come from?). What the heck is going on? So is the 411 going to be a dual tuner 8psk-turbo/MPEG4 capable box? Or do we buy a 942 and say to hell with it?


----------



## Gary Murrell (Jan 11, 2005)

After this Chat I finally realize how far off the impact of Mpeg4 is going to be, Great!!

-Gary


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

They already use turbo 8psk for their HD channels, they must've been talking about it as a plan to move their SD channels to it and get more bandwidth that way.

Either way it was nice to actually have some tech chat on tonight's tech chat


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

BFG,

This is not my understanding BFG, but I could be wrong. Actually if they are trying to squeeze more bandwidth from SD to give it to HD using Turbo 8psk that would not make a lot of sense. That would leave out the 508 users and 721 users out in the cold if I am not mistaken. Why would you do that if you are planning on upgrading the 508 for NBR. I think they plan on having the 50X around for a while so I don't think they would be converting the SD channels to something that the 50X and 721 series is using.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BFG said:


> They already use turbo 8psk for their HD channels, they must've been talking about it as a plan to move their SD channels to it and get more bandwidth that way.
> 
> Either way it was nice to actually have some tech chat on tonight's tech chat


I think the point they were trying to make was that MPEG4 encoders currently would only gain them 20% bandwidth over the MPEG2 compression... whereas they already get 30%+ by using 8PSK... so while they plan on moving the MPEG4 in the future, it doesn't immediately give them all the bandwidth they hoped it would, so in the meantime they will use 8PSK more as they gradually phase in MPEG4.

I assumed this was regarding new HD channels... since I don't believe any of the non-HD receivers use 8PSK currently, and I don't believe this would be a software upgrade either... and it would require swapping set-top boxes just as MPEG4 would...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> assumed this was regarding new HD channels... since I don't believe any of the non-HD receivers use 8PSK currently, and I don't believe this would be a software upgrade either... and it would require swapping set-top boxes just as MPEG4 would...


Newer receivers can do 8PSK: 311/322/522/625 plus all HD boxes

And now, as promised for the August Tech Chat  - All about MPEG4:
*Mark:* Echostar absolutely wants to to be a leader in high definition programming. Thats where MPEG4 is going to get it's first start, because it just helps us a little bit. So we are going to be doing a lot of other things besides MPEG4.

We have another technology called 8PSK Turbo. We've got a new satellite dish and orbital locations with Dish1000. We've got some new satellites coming up like Echostar 10. And of course the MPEG4 technology. That's kind what you have to look forward to. So let's talk about MPEG4 and 8PSK.

The falicy of MPEG4 is there has been a lot of hype in the press and in the marketplace about MPEG4. The issue is, is that while we can build a set top box that works great with MPEG4, the encoders aren't there yet to really support some of the press that you see that you'll get 50 to 100% more efficiency in the allocated bandwidth. The encoders aren't there yet. Today they are promising 20% with over time they will be getting better and better and better - every year they will get a little bit better. Right now they are only looking like 20%.

So what we have done is that we've deployed a technology for many years called 8PSK Turbo Code. And what that allows us to do - we can take our existing capacity and get 30-40% efficiency improvement. The same thing that MPEG4 will give us for the next two years, we believe. And guess what? Most of you guys out there already have this technology in your set top box - because - what Dan, we've been shipping it for how many years?

*Dan:* About three years, 10 million plus receivers.
*Mark:* Easily over 10 million receivers.
*Dan:* At least ten.

*Mark:* So, a lot of you are already seeing the advantages to this with our existing HD programming. We hope to use that in other program slots to give us more bandwidth. Doing more with HD or to mine bandwidth for HD programming.

The other thing that we are doing is that we've got a new satellite slot at the 129 degree location. So we've got a new dish called Dish 1000, basically that adds a third DBS orbital location. The dish is actually right here beside me - it is about the same size as a Dish 500 you see today. It actually just a little bit bigger. It is very small, easy to install, and it provides us with a solution for much of the continental United States to give people more programming especially for high def locals.

The other thing that is coming out is that we have Echo 10, that's going to be launching in the first half of this year. Echo 10 is a much more powerful bird, state of the art bird, I was just seeing some pictures of it today where it is at at the manufacturer - they are doing their shake and roll testing right now. And Echo 10 will give us more spotbeam capacity and with spots, again, we can give you a lot more high definition locals. Because in high def, locals seem to be a big deal for everybody to get their local ABC, NBC, FOX and so forth in high definition.

Because of all of these different things we are going to roll out MPEG4 a lot slower than probably some of our competitors. Because we don't have to. The first things we will be rolling MPEG4 out is in high definition programming.

Our first receiver is rolling out in the next week or two, it was - for some of those who follow the chat rooms and have seen it at some of our trade shows it was called the 411 and some 411's are going out the door here very quickly. But over time we are coming out with a new series and it is going to be called the 211.

The 211 and 411 are basically replacements for our existing 811 and have basically the same feature set - maybe a little bit upgraded on the connectors, but fundamentally (Dan) a replacement for the 811. So that's kinda the story on MPEG4.

(to Dan) Anything else to add on MPEG4?

*Dan:* We will be making some announcements on existing customer programs in the very near future. I'd tune in to the Charlie Chats for that. And also some announcements on additional HD programming.​BTW: This was four minutes of the show - Edited to remove odd drop in words.

James Long


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

JL thanks for the recap on the MPEG4. I missed the show and forgot to set to record on my DVR. I am still confused at those statements especially with such a large 50X base.. You cant start converting SD channels an lock out those guys. Can you?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No ... but you can start with selected channels to minimize the upgrade impact and do swaps like 311s for 301s (or a 322 for two 301s) and 522s for 50x/510s in the marketplaces/nitches that they want to convert first. The 311/322/522 have been out long enough that they are "cheap" compared to 211's and the yet to be announced new breeds.

I do expect it to be minimal markets at first - either by geography or nitch - and as they note, they have 10 million receivers already in the field that are already upgraded, so that helps.

I just hope the forum folk have the patience to wait their turn.  I suspect it will be a lot like the announced plan for D1000 ... free only in defined situations. One will just have to wait until they fit the definition. Patience!

JL


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

So I guess I have to wait to get an HD DVR? If I'm going to plunk down $600-$700, it has be be useful for at least 5 years and allow me to receive all new HD programming, including locals via E* when available. The 5 year requirement seems to rule out a 942, although that's what I'd like. Or will they release an MPEG4 version of the 942 which could be used now and still be ready for MPEG4 later? They really need to get their act together and give us some specific guidance.


----------



## booger (Nov 1, 2005)

I don't understand why the 625 has the slower USB hardware? With it being new, you would think they would have included the faster USB connector. Then I could have added a hard drive and faster transfers for the PocketDish. I can't see how cost would be a concern when USB 2.0 (pro) is the standard on most electronics.

Bummer.


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

So to sum up- this was a good-news/bad-news kind of chat. In a way, it's more good in the short term- 921 & 942 users should see SOME increase in HD programming without getting screwed on a hardware upgrade.

BTW...someone said early in the thread that the 3900 on up was software upgradeable to 8PSK. Is this not true? If it is, it seems like they should just swap out the few ancient receivers left and convert everything. It's the only way to get substantial bandwidth out of this. Moving small LIL markets to 8PSK only makes small amounts of room, and on the spotbeams.

(Crossing fingers that they can at least to HD-LIL to the top 15 DMAs  )


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

One thing that was glossed over is that 30% is still a lot when it comes to HD. And HD is already in 8PSK, so there's no savings possible there.

Converting HD to MPEG-4 would allow them to add at least 6 channels to the current HD transponders (if you include the current Voom transponders). They've also freed up almost 2 whole transponders at 110, so that's 6-8 more.



> Because of all of these different things we are going to roll out MPEG4 a lot slower than probably some of our competitors. Because we don't have to. The first things we will be rolling MPEG4 out is in high definition programming


So I take back what I said...I still think HD receivers are going to get swapped in 06.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

The big advantage for current owners of HD 8psk hardware will occur if the launch of Echostar 10 goes as planned. That is where the savings are.


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

I'd consider it bad news for the 921. The receiver is in desperate need of a swapout, and that isn't going to happen till it's forced by mpeg 4. But, yes, so much for Charlies repeated comments of new more HD till mpeg 4.

Just hope they don't do a "DirectTV" and give us HD-Lite.

Did you all listen carefully to the description of the 942 external hard drive support?

It was described as an archival drive. To me this means it'll be up to the user to move content to the drive. All initial recording would still be to the internal hard drive.

This doesn't surprise me, I don't think USB2 can support 5 HD streams. As an archival drive it only needs to support 1 stream. (the Scientific Atlantic box is using S-ATA for it's external drive, the latest Motorola has an S-ATA port as well). This is fine.

Reducing the bandwidth to 1 sream should allow use of just about any external USB box one might pick up (there's lot's of cheep ones a www.geeks.com).

P.S. I still think the Pocket Dish is a yawner.  Already travel with a laptop with a 15.4" screen. Give me a way to copy content to that.


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

dave1234 said:


> The big advantage for current owners of HD 8psk hardware will occur if the launch of Echostar 10 goes as planned. That is where the savings are.


Why is there savings possible...All HD is already 8PSK.

UNLESS this "8PSK-Turbo" is actually something new and allows a 30% increase over 8PSK. But several have said it's already in use.

Now it's true E*10 will offer a lot of new bandwidth. But it has nothing to do with 8PSK.

Smoke & Mirrors, I say. They need to switch a substantial amount of SD programming to 8PSK to make it worthwhile. BUT, that is certainly more possible that switching a lot of SD to MPEG-4.

No matter what they do, it will be a boon to HD viewers. But I think people are misinturpreting all this.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

M Sparks said:


> So to sum up- this was a good-news/bad-news kind of chat. In a way, it's more good in the short term- 921 & 942 users should see SOME increase in HD programming without getting screwed on a hardware upgrade.
> 
> BTW...someone said early in the thread that the 3900 on up was software upgradeable to 8PSK. Is this not true? If it is, it seems like they should just swap out the few ancient receivers left and convert everything. It's the only way to get substantial bandwidth out of this. Moving small LIL markets to 8PSK only makes small amounts of room, and on the spotbeams.
> 
> (Crossing fingers that they can at least to HD-LIL to the top 15 DMAs  )


8PSK is not software, it is a hardware upgrade.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Am I missing something? I thought MPEG4 was more difficult to process and that encoding was not an issue.

http://www.tandbergtv.com/productview.asp?n=68


----------



## cebbigh (Feb 27, 2005)

Allen Noland said:


> Also have new satellite slot at 129 location. With dish 1000 can receive 3 orbital locations. Echo 10 will give more spot beams for HD locals.


Does this mean that you will need a Dish 1000 to receive HD Locals?


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

MikeW said:


> 8PSK is not software, it is a hardware upgrade.


8PSK alone is hardware as Mike stated. The upcoming upgrade is Turbo 8PSK which is a software upgrade to units that are already 8PSK.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

cebbigh said:


> Does this mean that you will need a Dish 1000 to receive HD Locals?


From my understanding Echo10 was slated for the 110 slot??


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Jason Nipp said:


> 8PSK alone is hardware as Mike stated. The upcoming upgrade is Turbo 8PSK which is a software upgrade to units that are already 8PSK.


ohh, that makes sense then, neat. Hopefully it means more channels without equipment swaps


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

So to get the advantages of 8PSK, they need to swap out receivers. No doubt the new receivers will be both 8PSK and MPEG-4 capable. So there's a lot of exchanging to be done to take advantage of even 8PSK. Who would accept a used/refurb 811 or such, when another swap to MPEG-4 would be in the cards? This comment about 8PSK providing most of the benefits is overstated- they have to upgrade a LOT of receivers to get 8PSK, so they can move more transmissions to 8PSK- and that upgrade process will provide MPEG-4 also.

If E* can get more programming to sell, and sell it successfully, I'm sure they'll move faster on MPEG-4/8PSK than they've indicated.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Read a few posts back NavyChop. Sounds to me that there might be an enhancement coming that will increase the throughput of 8PSK through software. If this is the case then they can do it with the current hardware. 

Personally I am not buying into E* going after SD content through 8SPK in the short term. Possible long term. If they are going to start doing receiver swaps it will be to get MPEG4 into the customer base at the same time. 

The question that runs through my mind is that they mention only getting 20% on the current MPEG4 chipsets and there is hope to get much better results in the future. Will this require a new chip? Since MPEG4 decoding is done in chip I would expect this a possibility. I wonder if they new boxes are designed for this scenario?


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

olgeezer said:


> Am I missing something? I thought MPEG4 was more difficult to process and that encoding was not an issue.
> 
> http://www.tandbergtv.com/productview.asp?n=68


If I'm not missing something, is someone ten years behind the times? (Read about mpeg4 and the 264)

http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/home/article.php?id=100349&pg=2


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Practically speaking, current utilization of 8PSK transponders show use of Turbo deCoding scheme opposite to Viterbi  for QPSK transponder. If you want to taste something new from that not-so-technical info of the chat, then look at 129 satellite 13 transponder - there is new test of Turbo Coding with QPSK (!) modulation and hi FEC=7/8.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

I have been holding off on a decision about what to do about my crappy 921. I didn't want to pay $700 for a 942 since the 962 was supposed to be "just around the corner - maybe Q1 2006." Of course that has all been speculation since E* has never said anything publicly about a timeline for that receiver.

Now not only do I not know if/when a 962 will be out, I also don't know if there will be restrictions on who can get one.

I suppose I will give it another 6 months but darn I am getting frustrated with this. I have wanted to replace my box for about 6 months already and have been waiting for news before I do.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

olgeezer said:


> If I'm not missing something, is someone ten years behind the times? (Read about mpeg4 and the 264)
> 
> http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/home/article.php?id=100349&pg=2


Sure, you're missed a lot - look at next page : "Efficient encoders and decoders for H.264 are just coming into use in 2005".


----------



## rthomp03 (Sep 29, 2005)

Jason Nipp said:


> From my understanding Echo10 was slated for the 110 slot??


They confirmed that in the Chat last night. E10 to th 110 orbital slot for the spots.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Sure, you're missed a lot - look at next page : "Efficient encoders and decoders for H.264 are just coming into use in 2005".


That's this year and the previous link was to a unit that is being made today, and I believe has been available for most of the year. for Dish to say that MPEG4, currently will only improve compression by 20% is old news and very misleading.


----------



## rthomp03 (Sep 29, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Read a few posts back NavyChop. Sounds to me that there might be an enhancement coming that will increase the throughput of 8PSK through software. If this is the case then they can do it with the current hardware.
> 
> Personally I am not buying into E* going after SD content through 8SPK in the short term. Possible long term. If they are going to start doing receiver swaps it will be to get MPEG4 into the customer base at the same time.
> 
> The question that runs through my mind is that they mention only getting 20% on the current MPEG4 chipsets and there is hope to get much better results in the future. Will this require a new chip? Since MPEG4 decoding is done in chip I would expect this a possibility. I wonder if they new boxes are designed for this scenario?


The problem is in the ENcoding not DEcoding. :nono:


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

ron barry:

My understanding of that post is that STBs with 8PSK now will get a s/w upgrade that improves the thru put- but that only applies to receivers currently with 8PSK. If your receiver (721, 508, etc) does not have 8PSK capability, the enhancement does not apply. You still need the 8PSK h/w, and as you said, they'll upgrade the boxes to new ones with both 8PSK and MPEG-4. Perhaps at some cost to us, of course. Maybe it'll be another year or more before we hear of any program to move some SD to 8PSK and a receiver upgrade path to support it.

IIRC, the MPEG-4 chips for receivers can decode that class of compression algorithms (and MPEG-2) in real time. The encoders are not able to get max compression out of the concept yet- in REAL TIME. Computers and dedicated h/w can compress a video stream to MPEG-4 to great success, but perhaps not in real time. For much of what satcos distribute, real time compression is needed. But it seems to me they should be able to have movies and some other programming far enough in advance to compress fully, even if somewhat more slowly. Then the stored, already compressed material can be uplinked. Since they don't seem to be projecting doing that, I must misunderstand the system. Can anyone explain the process of program material acquisition, handling, uplinking? Is it all delivered in real time, necessitating real time MPEG-4 encoding?


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

MikeW said:


> 8PSK is not software, it is a hardware upgrade.


OK, thanks. It didn't sound right to me, but I got that from this post



bucknasty said:


> 3900 and up has 8psk hardware, but will have to be software activated


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

But 3900 & up are not all 8PSK capable. 721, 501, 508, 510- all not 8PSK capable, per the previously posted *link.* And all came out after the discontinued 3900, did they not?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

dwcobb said:


> I have been holding off on a decision about what to do about my crappy 921. I didn't want to pay $700 for a 942 since the 962 was supposed to be "just around the corner - maybe Q1 2006." Of course that has all been speculation since E* has never said anything publicly about a timeline for that receiver.
> 
> Now not only do I not know if/when a 962 will be out, I also don't know if there will be restrictions on who can get one.
> 
> I suppose I will give it another 6 months but darn I am getting frustrated with this. I have wanted to replace my box for about 6 months already and have been waiting for news before I do.


:welcome_s

Welcome dwcobb

I am exactly in the same boat. I have a HD receiver that I want to replace with a HD DVR. I also have a 921 that I am not pleased with and was hoping that MPEG4 would save me from my frustration. Ofcourse the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, but I was willing to take that chance.

With the new news last night, I think I am still going to hold off on replacing my 811 and as for my 921. Well I still plan on holding off on that one too until I get a better idea when the new MPEG4 compatiable HD DVR is released.

We all have our own thresholds and goals so it is hard to tell anyone what they should do in these situations. All I can say, is that I am going to wait a while and see how things play out. Still too much in flux to make a move for me.


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Read a few posts back NavyChop. Sounds to me that there might be an enhancement coming that will increase the throughput of 8PSK through software. If this is the case then they can do it with the current hardware.
> 
> Personally I am not buying into E* going after SD content through 8SPK in the short term. Possible long term. If they are going to start doing receiver swaps it will be to get MPEG4 into the customer base at the same time.
> 
> The question that runs through my mind is that they mention only getting 20% on the current MPEG4 chipsets and there is hope to get much better results in the future. Will this require a new chip? Since MPEG4 decoding is done in chip I would expect this a possibility. I wonder if they new boxes are designed for this scenario?


The problem seems to be there's three levels of people talking about the same thing.

1)People who understand the technology fully, but don't seem to be talking much.

2)People (like me) who have a working understanding of the technology, but are trying to understand the details.

3)People who don't understand it at all and are confusing the issue with "They're going to switch HD to 8PSK!"

So who's going to step up with a definitive answer... IS 8PSK-TURBO GOING TO IMPROVE ON 8PSK BY 30%-40%? Or is the 30%-40% over QPSK?

If there is a genuine potential for 30%-40% increases, then this is exciting. But I've yet to see any posts that actually say that, and the Tech-Chat transcript is unclear.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

navychop said:


> ron barry:
> 
> My understanding of that post is that STBs with 8PSK now will get a s/w upgrade that improves the thru put- but that only applies to receivers currently with 8PSK. If your receiver (721, 508, etc) does not have 8PSK capability, the enhancement does not apply. You still need the 8PSK h/w, and as you said, they'll upgrade the boxes to new ones with both 8PSK and MPEG-4. Perhaps at some cost to us, of course. Maybe it'll be another year or more before we hear of any program to move some SD to 8PSK and a receiver upgrade path to support it.
> 
> IIRC, the MPEG-4 chips for receivers can decode that class of compression algorithms (and MPEG-2) in real time. The encoders are not able to get max compression out of the concept yet- in REAL TIME. Computers and dedicated h/w can compress a video stream to MPEG-4 to great success, but perhaps not in real time. For much of what satcos distribute, real time compression is needed. But it seems to me they should be able to have movies and some other programming far enough in advance to compress fully, even if somewhat more slowly. Then the stored, already compressed material can be uplinked. Since they don't seem to be projecting doing that, I must misunderstand the system. Can anyone explain the process of program material acquisition, handling, uplinking? Is it all delivered in real time, necessitating real time MPEG-4 encoding?


yes, there are several MPEG4 10H264 real time encoders in the marketplace, today


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

navychop said:


> ron barry:
> 
> My understanding of that post is that STBs with 8PSK now will get a s/w upgrade that improves the thru put- but that only applies to receivers currently with 8PSK. If your receiver (721, 508, etc) does not have 8PSK capability, the enhancement does not apply. You still need the 8PSK h/w, and as you said, they'll upgrade the boxes to new ones with both 8PSK and MPEG-4.


But why would you need the upgrade on the SD receivers? There is no SD programming in 8PSK.

The more I look at this, the more I see this can go either way. This is either an earthshaking announcement, or mildly good news.

If they are planning to trade out legacy receivers and convert ALL SD programming to 8PSK-Turbo this is amazing news.

If they are planning to convert HD 8PSK to 8PSK-Turbo and get a 40% increase, this is great news.

If 8PSK-Turbo allows a slight increase over 8PSK, and they only use it for HD, then we might see a slight increase in HD quality.

And people still keep ignoring the part where they said "The first MPEG-4 programming will be HD."


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

navychop said:


> ron barry:
> 
> My understanding of that post is that STBs with 8PSK now will get a s/w upgrade that improves the thru put- but that only applies to receivers currently with 8PSK. If your receiver (721, 508, etc) does not have 8PSK capability, the enhancement does not apply. You still need the 8PSK h/w, and as you said, they'll upgrade the boxes to new ones with both 8PSK and MPEG-4. Perhaps at some cost to us, of course. Maybe it'll be another year or more before we hear of any program to move some SD to 8PSK and a receiver upgrade path to support it.


Sorry.. I missed the part on the encoding side. Thought it was a throughput issue on the receiver side. My mistake. Good to hear it is on the sending side so that answer one of my concerns.

So as I see it.. If there are able to get another 30-40% throughput through the 8SPK with a software upgrade then that is win in my book and would help the capacity issue. Eventually adding MPEG4 on top of it would also help.

From what I can see, for the HD deliver side of the fence. You have an approach where you can start with software upgrade to free up 30%, follow up perhaps with a 20% improvement going from MPEG2 to 4 and then once real time encoding improves swap out at the delivery end to improve the picture more.

All speculation on my part, but if this is the case. not a bad plan.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

So if there are real time encoders- why the BS? Are they too expensive, or has E* just already committed to/bought older stuff? Am I asking questions that can't be answered?


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

navychop said:


> So if there are real time encoders- why the BS? Are they too expensive, or has E* just already committed to/bought older stuff? Am I asking questions that can't be answered?


There are real time encoders, it's just that they are not yet quick enough to compress the signal on the fly as fully as possible with MPEG4.


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Since MPEG4 is object based-encoding, instead of frame-based(MPEG2), the amount of compression that real time encoders can achieve depends upon how many objects they can split the video stream into and handle in real time. Faster encoders will be needed to get higher compression.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> There are real time encoders, it's just that they are not yet quick enough to compress the signal on the fly as fully as possible with MPEG4.


I think you just said something confusing...

"There are real time encoders"... "they are not yet quick enough to compress the signal on the fly"?

Doesn't that mean they aren't real-time encoders?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

M Sparks said:


> But why would you need the upgrade on the SD receivers? There is no SD programming in 8PSK.
> 
> The more I look at this, the more I see this can go either way. This is either an earthshaking announcement, or mildly good news.
> 
> ...


And again for not reading but posting ppl, current transponders what using 8PSK modulation ALSO transmitt Turbo Coded packets. Nothing to change, exclude better FEC ratio, say goto 7/8 if they can.
New tests going to improve QPSK transponder's bandwith - using Turbo Coding too. See [email protected]


----------



## LASooner (Jan 24, 2005)

If all channels are 8psk, would that not allow them to have HD and SD channels on the same transponders as well?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In a slightly different direction... Did anyone else notice how the woman (I forget her name) that usually does the "how to change batteries in your remote) segments seemed to have a lot of other technical answers that the guys on stage didn't have?

Made me wonder why they keep having her do the remote segments when it appeared last night she may have a bunch of untapped knowledge that they aren't taking advantage of on the show.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I think you just said something confusing...
> 
> "There are real time encoders"... "they are not yet quick enough to compress the signal on the fly"?
> 
> Doesn't that mean they aren't real-time encoders?


MPEG4 can be encoded with varying levels of compression. The more compression requires more processing. Currently there are real time encoders that can convert a video stream to MPEG4 on the fly. The issue is that they are not fast enough to compress the stream as much as Dish would like.

BTW: You cut off the last part of my quote.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

So we have a real time encoder that can do, say, 20%. Depending upon source material, of course. In another year, they may have 30%, and in three years, maybe up to the 50% goal they think the MPEG-4 technology may support. Other than the vague timeframes, does this sound like the situation?


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I think you just said something confusing...
> 
> "There are real time encoders"... "they are not yet quick enough to compress the signal on the fly"?
> 
> Doesn't that mean they aren't real-time encoders?


It's only confusing if you stop in the middle of the sentence.



> "...on the fly AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE WITH MPEG-4"
> 
> My computer can probably compress video "as fully possible with MPEG-4", but not with live video.
> 
> ...


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

LASooner said:


> If all channels are 8psk, would that not allow them to have HD and SD channels on the same transponders as well?


An EXCELLENT point. The extra space made by using 8PSK-TURBO on a transponder may not even be enough for another HD channel, but they might be able to squeeze an extra few SD channels in.


----------



## M Sparks (Sep 28, 2005)

navychop said:


> So we have a real time encoder that can do, say, 20%. Depending upon source material, of course. In another year, they may have 30%, and in three years, maybe up to the 50% goal they think the MPEG-4 technology may support. Other than the vague timeframes, does this sound like the situation?


Exactly. The fact that MPEG-2 encoders have improved over the years is what has allowed D* and E* to squeeze in so many more channels. (Well, it's about 2/3rds tech improvements and 1/3rd over-compression.)

Actually, MPEG-4 theoretically supports a 100% increase, but 50% is what they were hoping for.

To make matters more confusing is the potential to use the percentages wrong. A 100% increase in effeciency is a 50% DECREASE in bandwidth usage.


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

M Sparks said:


> An EXCELLENT point. The extra space made by using 8PSK-TURBO on a transponder may not even be enough for another HD channel, but they might be able to squeeze an extra few SD channels in.


If you look at the current transponder usage, they gain about 10Mbit/s by switching from qpsk to 8psk. They get 43Mbit on a 8psk and 33Mbit on a qpsk tranponder. So they could probably cram 3-4 more SD channels per tranponder if they went SD only on it. Currently, they are running 3 HD channels per 8psk transponder. Except for HDNet and HDN Movies (those 2 are on one TP).

I'm sure they could mix and match, unless their statistical multiplexers dont work with SD and HD. Remember, they arent just giving each channel the same bandwidth. There are some complex stat-muxes being used to leverage the finite bandwidth in the most useful way.


----------



## Jon Spackman (Feb 7, 2005)

Lets make a list of 8psk compatible recievers.

942, 921, 811, 6000, 322, 522, 625. 

Are those correct? are there more that I missed?


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

j5races said:


> Lets make a list of 8psk compatible recievers.
> 
> 942, 921, 811, 6000, 322, 522, 625.
> 
> Are those correct? are there more that I missed?


111, 311, 322, 522, 6000 + 8psk module, 811, 921, 942, 211, 411 have the 8psk tuner.

Legacy (4 digit numbers), 501, 721 DO NOT.


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Would it be safe to assume that a 962 MPEG4 HD DVR is not as close as some including myself had anticipated???


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

Kind of sounds that way.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

Ghostwriter said:


> Would it be safe to assume that a 962 MPEG4 HD DVR is not as close as some including myself had anticipated???


I certainly wouldn't want to wager on an assumption. :up_to_som


----------



## SJ HART (Feb 12, 2003)

But if they can introduce some new HD local channels AND we can keep our current receivers (and just replace the DISH), this sounds great!


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

navychop said:


> So to get the advantages of 8PSK, they need to swap , I'm sure they'll move faster on MPEG-4/8PSK than they've indicated.


Most of the receivers out there already do 8psk. None do mpeg4.


----------



## jayn_j (Dec 15, 2002)

tnsprin said:


> Most of the receivers out there already do 8psk. None do mpeg4.


I simply can't believe that the majority of receivers out there were purchased in the last two years. The churn isn't that high, nor is the growth rate. These forums are full of people who need the latest and greatest, but my neighbors who just want a picture, generally still have the box they were given when they first committed. I would think there are a lot of 3xxx, 4xxx, 301's etc, and I haven't seen any statistics that say otherwise. Personally, I've got a 508 and a 4920 and I see a fair number of posts from people with similar and even older equipment out there.

Given that, I don't see how an 8psk scheme could possibly work.


----------



## mattb (Apr 29, 2002)

hokieengineer said:


> 111, 311, 322, 522, 6000 + 8psk module, 811, 921, 942, 211, 411 have the 8psk tuner.
> 
> Legacy (4 digit numbers), 501, 721 DO NOT.


I could see them adding new SD stuff in 8PSK in the meantime and anyone wanting that would have to upgrade to a receiver that supported it... would be an easy way to hold off on MPEG4 and use up supplies of the current receivers (which support 8SPK) and get the old lagacy receivers out of the market stream that are being used currently.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mattb said:


> I could see them adding new SD stuff in 8PSK in the meantime and anyone wanting that would have to upgrade to a receiver that supported it... would be an easy way to hold off on MPEG4 and use up supplies of the current receivers (which support 8SPK) and get the old lagacy receivers out of the market stream that are being used currently.


The problem, though... is if they don't replace the old non-8PSK receivers with a receiver that is 8PSK AND MPEG4... then they are forcing another known incompatibility in a few years with MPEG4 long-term plans.

So... it would seem to me that any swapout of old receivers still has to wait until they have MPEG4 receivers in the market... and any DVR swap of an old receiver like my 501 would have to be for a new MPEG4 DVR that doesn't seem to exist yet since we have only been hearing about upcoming release for non-DVR MPEG4 receivers.

I have a 501 DVR and a 6000U for HD. If they add new channels in 8PSK I'm good on my main TV but not for my DVR... so I would like to think they will not just move SD channels to 8PSK without an appropriate DVR swap that is comparable for the 501-type receiver.

[adding more to my post here...]

I know the 522 (message above) is said to be 8PSK compatible... but if they swapped me a 522 for my 501, then they've just postponed having to swap me again for an MPEG4 a couple of years after that... which doesn't make sense to me. Why swap when you are already planning another swap in a couple of years? That's where I was going above.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> MPEG4 can be encoded with varying levels of compression. The more compression requires more processing. Currently there are real time encoders that can convert a video stream to MPEG4 on the fly. The issue is that they are not fast enough to compress the stream as much as Dish would like.
> 
> BTW: You cut off the last part of my quote.


Actually in my post I did quote your entire message... but when I was re-typing my part of the message I snipped it and didn't re-quote the entire message.

I know technically, by the way, what you were meaning... that MPEG4 encoders exist that can encode for varying degrees... but the ones that compress at the highest compression are not real-time... and the ones that are real-time do not provide a significant gain over what Dish is already using in 8PSK.

Where I was going was... someone was asking about why they wouldn't move to MPEG4 and why they were using "outdated" information or something... and I was probably overly simple in my reply.

The gyst as I'm getting it is... to get full efficiency from MPEG4, they don't have a current real-time MPEG4 encoder they can use on their end OR perhaps there is one but it is too expensive or something... so that what they are left with is an MPEG4 encoder that only results in 20% better vs if they continue to use 8PSK and get 30% improvement.

Then again, there is so much floating around that I think I'm getting confused now!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The gyst as I'm getting it is... to get full efficiency from MPEG4, they don't have a current real-time MPEG4 encoder they can use on their end OR perhaps there is one but it is too expensive or something...


The statement was that the MPEG4 encoders that could give a 50-100% increase in efficiency on live programming were not there yet. MPEG4 decoders are available and will be built into the new receivers.


HDMe said:


> so that what they are left with is an MPEG4 encoder that only results in 20% better vs if they continue to use 8PSK and get 30% improvement.


The basic choice is to accept MPEG4 at it's current under par efficiency (as other companies have) or seek something better. E* believes it has found something better (for the time being) that will improve efficiency by 30-40% TODAY - an improved version of MPEG2. Over time MPEG4 might catch up with what E*'s Mark called "_8PSK Turbo Code_". In the mean time E* can slowly begin the introduction of MPEG4 compatable receivers (just like they quietly introduced those that can do "_8PSK Turbo_" over the past three years).

It is like selling everyone a color TV starting three years before broadcasting in color. Having three years worth of "color ready" TVs is better than having a marketplace with no color sets on the day you introduce "color only" programming. The statement on the chat was that there were 10 million "_8PSK Turbo_" capable receivers already in homes. That is a good head start.

JL


----------



## ColoradoDBS (Jul 5, 2005)

olgeezer said:


> Am I missing something? I thought MPEG4 was more difficult to process and that encoding was not an issue.
> 
> http://www.tandbergtv.com/productview.asp?n=68


Difficulty encoding and decoding go hand in hand. Decoding (processing) is generally much easier, but has to be done on every tuner. Encoding takes much, much more work than decoding, but since it is only done once, in one location, it is a little more manageable.

This does become an issue however when you are trying to encode a signal for upload in realtime. This is why mpeg4 only offers a 20% boost currently - the more compressed a signal is, the more processing power it takes. Encoding beyond a 20% improvement is not possible on e*'s current equipment while being produced in realtime. The software will need to be further developed and the hardware upgraded before this can be improved. Perhaps there are some who remember when mpeg4 first hit the pc world and a top of the line pc would take 10+ hours to convert a 2 hr movie from mpeg2 to mpeg4. Its the similar problem


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

> Perhaps there are some who remember when mpeg4 first hit the pc world and a top of the line pc would take 10+ hours to convert a 2 hr movie from mpeg2 to mpeg4. Its the similar problem


That very ture ColoradoDBS and that was only using a very basic encoding profile with out all other encoding option and hold ture today when enable Advanced profile H.264/AVC or VC-1 features.
As for "Decoding (processing) is generally much easier" this not alway ture.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Ok, so now that we know Dish is pushing back the MPEG4 conversion, how will this impact new HD additions like the rest of VOOM?


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> Ok, so now that we know Dish is pushing back the MPEG4 conversion, how will this impact new HD additions like the rest of VOOM?


There's really no way to answer that. Depends how many scream for locals vs how many scream for nationals. We must assume E* will try hard to keep up with the competitors.

At this point, it sounds like E* 8VSB will allow them to keep up with D* mpeg 4 (for now).

I still think that DirectTV's Spaceway birds are going to push them in front for HD locals.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

David_Levin said:


> ...
> I still think that DirectTV's Spaceway birds are going to push them in front for HD locals.


Fine with me. I have OTA locals. I wonder if the Direct HD locals will be HD-lite, too?


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

James Long said:


> The statement was that the MPEG4 encoders that could give a 50-100% increase in efficiency on live programming were not there yet. MPEG4 decoders are available and will be built into the new receivers.The basic choice is to accept MPEG4 at it's current under par efficiency (as other companies have) or seek something better. E* believes it has found something better (for the time being) that will improve efficiency by 30-40% TODAY - an improved version of MPEG2 over 8PSK. Over time MPEG4 over 8PSK might catch up with "8PSK Turbo Code". In the mean time E* can slowly begin the introduction of MPEG4 compatable receivers (just like they quietly introduced 8PSK over the past three years).
> 
> It is like selling everyone a color TV starting three years before broadcasting in color. Having three years worth of "color ready" TVs is better than having a marketplace with no color sets on the day you introduce "color only" programming. The statement on the chat was that there were 10 million 8PSK Turbo capable receivers already in homes. That is a good head start.
> 
> JL


James,

I believe you are incorrect. The current 8PSK transponders are using turbo coding. It is just a form of Forward Error Correction. The broadcom chip they have been using since the 6000 uses turbo codes as the FEC. The new DVB-S2 standard that came out also uses 8PSK, however uses something different for the FEC.

Data sheet on the broadcom chip:
http://www.broadcom.com/collateral/pb/4500-PB06-R.pdf

Maybe I misunderstood what you posted, but they will not be getting any "additional" bandwidth out of the current 8PSK transponders. The only way they will be gaining bandwidth is to convert existing qpsk transponders to 8psk.

This technology is nothing "new" to dish, its been used since the 8psk module came out for the 6000. They might be trying to make it sound "new" since the mpeg4 buzz word is being diminished. Heres a press release from almost two years ago talking about their choice of the broadcom chip:
http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=475712

Quote from Mark Jackson from December 1, 2003:
"Our customers want access to more channels and are increasingly requesting targeted programming and HDTV channels," said Mark Jackson, Senior Vice President of EchoStar Technologies Corporation. "Broadcom's turbo code technology enables us to deploy a field-proven solution meeting the technical performance that our service offering requires. We can provide our customers expanded services while continuing to provide them the variety and premium quality channels they have come to expect from DISH Network."

Some good reading on Turbo Codes:
http://www.elec.york.ac.uk/comms/papers/burr01_ecej.pdf

Edited to say that Discovery HD was the first channel uplinked in 8PSK, in June 2002.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

It still doesn't add up. So they've got 10 million plus receivers out there that can do 8PSK. They've also got 10 million plus receivers out there that can't. Therefore, they cannot start moving much SD to 8PSK without exchanging some of those receivers. 

This presents 2 options: Replace the non-8PSK STBs with 522s, 811s, 942s, etc. This gets them to recycle returned/refurb'd units back to the field, increasing their return on investment in those boxes. But it also requires another box swap out in what is likely to be less than 3 years, at some trouble and expense. I daresay the cost of exchanging the boxes twice and the extra troubleshooting service calls will be higher than just sending a combined MPEG-4 & 8PSK box out once (the second option). Plus, either way, the dish 1000 is likely to be needed in many cases. 

So I submit that as a practical matter, they can't gain much from 8PSK deployment without concurrent MPEG-4 deployment. They have millions of boxes to exchange, and it surely is more cost effective to do one exchange for a MPEG-4 8PSK box than to do two exchanges.

And there's another matter- how to handle folks like me, with grandfathered "fee free" DVRs? I have a 721, 508 & 301. If they replace my 721 with a 942 (they won't get a 921 in my house) and the 508 (& 301) with a 522, do I suddenly have to pay the DVR fees? When the exchange is basically for the convenience of DISH? Yes, I could get HD with the 942 and perhaps would pay a fee for the upgrade- but that's not my choice, it's theirs. My choice would be to wait for the 962 or similar, and add to my current Top 180 the HD & Voom packs. I'll add on HD/Voom and pay more to Dish when MPEG-4 is available, not before- I'm not eager to keep swapping out receivers and cleaning off DVR recordings to do so. Given the choice, I'll wait until I'm offered a reasonably priced option to get a 962, and dump my 301. I'd keep the 721 & 508 until they became literally useless, which seems to be some years from now, if we are to believe the Tech Chat.

I don't believe the Tech Chat. It makes no sense. To obtain any bandwidth benefits, they need to move on either 8PSK or MPEG-4, and as a practical matter they will likely do both more or less simultaneously for most of us. If Echostar 10 fails or is even delayed, that will put even more pressure on them to move quicker. Sure, the first year will be slow. But if they want to sell more programming, cost effectively, they need to move on this. And yes, there IS compelling content out there we are willing to pay for. And Dish better have broad, comprehensive HD offerings out there and in place by the time analog OTA is shut down. That's when more OTA HD will be noticed and appreciated by Joe Public- and cable has finally gotten the HD religion. That's not much over 3 years from now. Sure, all new HD subs will get MPEG-4 equipment, but they'd better be well along on converting current subs so they have the support base paying for those MPEG-4 HD offerings.

One other wild card: Those 5 satellites Voom ordered. I haven't heard of a cancellation fee being paid or construction on them halted. Any buyers for those?


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

jayn_j said:


> I simply can't believe that the majority of receivers out there were purchased in the last two years. The churn isn't that high, nor is the growth rate.


It may be higher than you think. I replaced two of my three 18-month old SD Dish boxes with a 942 this past summer. HDTV is a big driver but is _not_ counted as churn.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

ColoradoDBS said:


> Difficulty encoding and decoding go hand in hand. Decoding (processing) is generally much easier, but has to be done on every tuner. Encoding takes much, much more work than decoding, but since it is only done once, in one location, it is a little more manageable.
> 
> This does become an issue however when you are trying to encode a signal for upload in realtime. This is why mpeg4 only offers a 20% boost currently - the more compressed a signal is, the more processing power it takes. Encoding beyond a 20% improvement is not possible on e*'s current equipment while being produced in realtime. The software will need to be further developed and the hardware upgraded before this can be improved. Perhaps there are some who remember when mpeg4 first hit the pc world and a top of the line pc would take 10+ hours to convert a 2 hr movie from mpeg2 to mpeg4. Its the similar problem


Thank You for the explanation. I had understood that because MPEG4 wasn't linear, decoding was more difficult than encoding.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

Allen Noland said:


> Welcome to the tech chat with Mark and Dan.
> Pocket Dish is available. All models are in stock.


They lie. I called Dish last week and also did a web chat with them about two weeks ago (which I posted online here); in both cases, they had no information on PocketDish availability. I wrote to their P.R. guy (Mark, but not our Mark), who just spouted the usual platitudes about "retailers", none of which even have plans to carry it. (I called several Radio Shacks to verify, for example.) A few 402s and 700s have made it to the market, to the satillite-only retailers (which isn't going to help distribution much), but the 500 appears to be vaporware.

PriceGrabber.com has no matches for PocketDish nor any related ones for "AV500e". Same with MySimon.com's product search, Yahoo! shopping, and Amazon (which at least has figured out what the "related searches" are, even though they don't have any of the products.)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could actually believe what they say? Prove it. Point me to a _real_ retailer - someone I've heard of - that has the AV500e "in stock".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hokieengineer said:


> I believe you are incorrect.


It wouldn't be the first time, but from what I understand there is still untapped capacity left in the currently deployed chipsets. 30-40% would be an additional HD channel on every 8PSK transponder. I hope that I'm right. 

(There have been some test channels reported by P Smith and JohnH that could be the next level of MPEG2.)

JL


----------



## Bradtothebone (Aug 11, 2003)

> (navychop) So I submit that as a practical matter, they can't gain much from 8PSK deployment without concurrent MPEG-4 deployment. They have millions of boxes to exchange, and it surely is more cost effective to do one exchange for a MPEG-4 8PSK box than to do two exchanges.


I wonder what would happen if E* would move, say, premium movie channels and AT180 programming to 8PSK first? Maybe not even all premiums - maybe not HBO, for example. I don't have any idea how many non-8PSK boxes would be affected by that, but I suspect it's a *lot* less than "millions." (Does anyone know, approximately, how many AT-180-and-higher subs are out there? And how many of them have pre-8PSK boxes?) I would bet that most of the change-outs would be for 311's, or maybe even 111's, although there would undoubtably be some 522's or 625's involved, too. However, there wouldn't be anything to keep E* from recycling old 501/508/510's to AT60/120 subs with no premiums.

So that's what, 100 channels or so, reduced to the space that 70 now take up? That looks like two, maybe three transponders totally freed up to do more HD (six to nine national channels or so) without having to change out any HD boxes at all, and this is all before launching Echo 10.

Just food for thought and discussion - I'm obviously no expert.

Brad


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

navychop said:


> It still doesn't add up. So they've got 10 million plus receivers out there that can do 8PSK. They've also got 10 million plus receivers out there that can't. Therefore, they cannot start moving much SD to 8PSK without exchanging some of those receivers.
> 
> This presents 2 options: Replace the non-8PSK STBs with 522s, 811s, 942s, etc. This gets them to recycle returned/refurb'd units back to the field, increasing their return on investment in those boxes. But it also requires another box swap out in what is likely to be less than 3 years, at some trouble and expense. I daresay the cost of exchanging the boxes twice and the extra troubleshooting service calls will be higher than just sending a combined MPEG-4 & 8PSK box out once (the second option).
> 
> ...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> The question that runs through my mind is that they mention only getting 20% on the current MPEG4 chipsets and there is hope to get much better results in the future. Will this require a new chip? Since MPEG4 decoding is done in chip I would expect this a possibility. I wonder if they new boxes are designed for this scenario?


Do not confuse decoding (at your receiver) with encoding (at the uplink).

The problem is that the current crop of ENCODERS isn't up to the task. MPEG4 requires a substantial amount of content to be looked at once to do its magic. The real benefits come from being able to look at the original content both backward and forward to produce the most compressed product. Real-time equipment doesn't have that luxury.

On top of this, throw in the fact that the compressed product must fit in a narrow pipe and if it doesn't fit, artifacts happen.

Decoding MPEG4 content has no unknowns, so it can be done in a straightforward manner with substantially less horsepower (but probably still more than can be wrung out of a general purpose CPU).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

navychop said:


> I don't believe the Tech Chat. It makes no sense. To obtain any bandwidth benefits, they need to move on either 8PSK or MPEG-4, and as a practical matter they will likely do both more or less simultaneously for most of us.


The quickest way to more bandwidth at this time is to use spotbeams. This is similar to Comcast having local head ends. Rather than sending everything to everybody, you use spotbeams to send only what an area needs (or is entitled to).

Under the current scheme, the only people in trouble are those who lie about where their receiver is located, as local content will be moved to spotbeams (that everyone can receive without *PSK or MPEG4) and away from broad distribution.

As long as most everyone can be served by a spotbeam at 110, this works out great. If compression doesn't give the needed cut in bandwidth required (and it currently doesn't), there's not much point in opening up a bunch of pipes that are too small now or will be too large later.

My theory is that the broad appeal HD content (premiums, VOOM) will stay right where they are until such time that a negligible number of old receivers remain.


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Another way for E* to avoid a massive swapout of non 8PSK receivers would be to start converting LIL SD channels to 8PSK. It could be done one DMA at a time, and once all LIL subscribers in a DMA had 8PSK equipment, the LIL for that DMA could be switched to 8PSK and free up some bandwidth.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If it helps anyone digest the information... decoding vs encoding...

I always think of it as... During encoding, all the decisions have to be made (what to "trash" what to "compress" what bitrate and so on)... during decoding, there are no decisions to make, just process the incoming signal.

A more straightforward example... If I develop a code and encode all my text messages, then send them to you... I would send you the key you need to decode it, so you don't have to reverse-engineer everything I did to encode it. So it is easier for you to decode my message than it was for me to encode it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> It wouldn't be the first time, but from what I understand there is still untapped capacity left in the currently deployed 8PSK chipsets. 30-40% is an additional HD channel on every 8PSK transponder. I hope that I'm right.
> 
> (There have been some test channels reported by P Smith and JohnH that could be the next level of MPEG2 over 8PSK.)
> 
> JL


Correct, if they could reach FEC 7/8 instead of current 2/3. 
Other point what you guys still missing - QPSK with Turbo Codes and FEC=7/8 (testing at 129/13).
That will help legacy receivers survive .


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Correct, if they could reach FEC 7/8 instead of current 2/3.
> Other point what you guys still missing - QPSK with Turbo Codes and FEC=7/8 (testing at 129/13).
> That will help legacy receivers survive .


Yea, I saw that. Is that the only TP using QPSK t/c? I know they did some tests way back when on 105 when it was supposed to carry HD, they had qpsk t/c on it.

Most of the newly uplinked channels are either on 8psk or qpsk 3/4.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

I would venture to say that the future is HD. Adding the 8PSK with the super turbo upgrade is a step to the conversion process. Most everyone thereby may benefit. If I understand the theory correctly, the modification to the current 8PSK in conjunction with the adding of and migration to MPEG-4 will provide for the greatest bandwidth benefit. The 8PSK upgrade and conversion process may be more beneficial for everyone in the future.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Actually 8PSK+TC is old and proved technology, but new DVB-S2 standard went up to 16APSK and 32APSK modulation schemes. That's the future !


----------



## bushcasa (Jul 23, 2004)

boylehome,

Off topic. Is that Friant Dam as your avatar?

Jason


----------



## CoreyH (Jul 4, 2005)

E* saying the MPEG4 encoding technology isn't there yet rings bogus to me. Yes, encoder technology gets better and better. But the decoders that E* will put in set tops to decode MPEG4 and or H.264 are not going to change. I am puzzled why E* would keep deploying 811's if the 411 is really built.

SES Americom just launched a service called IP-Prime which is a headend in the sky for IPTV providers. This will enable a small telco to subscribe to a package of programming - MPEG4 encoded and provide IPTV to MPEG4 settop boxes over ADSL2+, VDSL or FTTH.

For E* to say MPEG4 encoding isn't ready just doesn't hold water. 8PSK is a fine thing too - but to me if the 411 exists there is no reason to continue building 811's or 311's for that matter. The component costs on MPEG4 decoder chips has come way down - so that it isn't a significant difference in the overall cost of the settop.

It's something else - E* engineers must be having trouble making the 422 and or 964. Even without MPEG4 content - there is no reason to continue making MPEG2 gear if the MPEG4 gear exists and can be built at a 10% premium to MPEG2 gear.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Really manufacturing ? Did you get real reports from Sanmina-SCI plants ?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

CoreyH said:


> E* saying the MPEG4 encoding technology isn't there yet rings bogus to me. Yes, encoder technology gets better and better. But the decoders that E* will put in set tops to decode MPEG4 and or H.264 are not going to change. I am puzzled why E* would keep deploying 811's if the 411 is really built.
> 
> SES Americom just launched a service called IP-Prime which is a headend in the sky for IPTV providers. This will enable a small telco to subscribe to a package of programming - MPEG4 encoded and provide IPTV to MPEG4 settop boxes over ADSL2+, VDSL or FTTH.
> 
> ...


first off.. :welcome_s

I don't know anything about SES America and what quality and resolution of MPEG they plan on delivering. Is this HD? There is definitely different flavors of MPEG4 just as there are MPEG2 and performance characteristics differ widely. From what I read, Dish felt that 20% improvement did not meet their goals to transition yet. There goals and the goals of SES America I am sure are very different and I am sure there business cases differ also.

As to why still deploy 811s and 311s. Simple, manufacturing does not turn on a dime and companies usually still have stock in the pipeline. There is always that ramp up and transition period. As to E* engineers having trouble with the 422 and the 964, my guess is the issue is not hardware at this point but the software is not ready yet.. Software takes time to bake.. I personally don't think E* is having trouble with these units, receivers take time to development even if you have a code base to start with... Why rush it when you don't have any MPEG4 in the stream and I am sure Dish is hoping to get some return on investment with their 942.

I am up for a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but personally I think it is just the nature of the process..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> I am up for a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but personally I think it is just the nature of the process..


I think it is also a case of d****d if they do, and d****d if they don't.

Rush to market with an untested, not ready for prime time, product and people will complain (921 anyone)... but wait and work out the details before release and people will complain about DirecTV or cable being "first".

I've worked at companies who always wanted to be first... I seem to see things differently than most corporations.

Being first only matters when you are innovative and are bringing new technology. In that case, there is benefit for being first, setting the standard, establishing yourself as THE brand, and so forth... though sometimes that can backfire when your exclusivity runs out and other companies can then produce cheaper versions without all your development overhead... but I digress.

When dealing with an improvement/tweak of existing technology, or adding more memory, or even something like MPEG2 to MPEG4... I see no real advantage of being first at the expense of being stable. IF you can be first and solid, then go for it! But I'd rather be second to market and be solid.

Case-in-point... One software company I worked for got a reputation for their 1.x, 2.x, and so forth releases being buggy... so customers learned to wait for 2.1 or 3.1 to buy a product that was more stable thereby rendering our companies rush to be first to market a moot point since everyone waited until the competitors product was out anyway to see if we had fixed our bugs yet!


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Actually 8PSK+TC is old and proved technology, but new DVB-S2 standard went up to 16APSK and 32APSK modulation schemes. That's the future !


Wouldn't that be something.. Dish delays release of their mpeg4 products to switch thier demodulators to dvb-s2 standards! Ha, never gonna happen. I don't believe anyone has produced silcon that can handle both 8PSK TC and dvb-s2.

Dish kind of got caught in the middle. DVB-S2 wasn't close to being a standard when they needed something to beef up bandwidth for HD. So they chose the 8psk-tc product from broadcom.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Case-in-point... One software company I worked for got a reputation for their 1.x, 2.x, and so forth releases being buggy... so customers learned to wait for 2.1 or 3.1 to buy a product that was more stable thereby rendering our companies rush to be first to market a moot point since everyone waited until the competitors product was out anyway to see if we had fixed our bugs yet!


Good points hookie.. This is very common for 1.x, 2.x releases to usually be less stable than they 1.1 and 2.1 counterparts. Since most companies bump the major to indicate major changes it usually comes with a batch of bugs. Since the minor version are usually bug fix with minor enhancments you are squashing a lot more bugs will trying to minimize introducing new ones. It is always good advice to wait for a patch before a major release if stability is your number one goal.

Since Dish's deployment stratagy has new features rolling in often that also in my opinion adds to stability risk. Definitely a catch 22 situation. both side have downsides.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Correct, if they could reach FEC 7/8 instead of current 2/3.
> Other point what you guys still missing - QPSK with Turbo Codes and FEC=7/8 (testing at 129/13).
> That will help legacy receivers survive .


QPSK Turbo? Yes, we should remember those test that you have found. "_8PSK Turbo_" and what you found are interesting developments to say the least.

JL


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

CoreyH said:


> E* saying the MPEG4 encoding technology isn't there yet rings bogus to me.
> For E* to say MPEG4 encoding isn't ready just doesn't hold water. 8PSK is a fine thing too - but to me if the 411 exists there is no reason to continue building 811's or 311's for that matter. The component costs on MPEG4 decoder chips has come way down - so that it isn't a significant difference in the overall cost of the settop.


There's another consideration. For LiL in HD, E* can pick off the MPEG2 stream that is encoded by the broadcaster and remultiplex it without re-encoding. The use MPEG4, the MPEG2 stream must be decoded and re-encoded as MPEG4. This creates two issues, the cost of the MPEG4 encoder at about $30K a pop and that any MPEG2 artifacts in the original MPEG2 encoder end up using additional bandwidth in the MPEG4 encoder.

Or you can say that MPEG4 is NG and pocket the savings. That works fine until HD LiL is expected in the smaller markets and you don't have the infrastructure to make it work.

Consider that D* will be doing MPEG4 and 8PSK simultaneously and the receivers will be backward compatable with MPEG2 and QPSK.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think we just mixed apples and oranges to an extent... and while being a tasty juice beverage, it can be confusing in other comparisons!

I don't know what the ultimate truth behind the "we aren't going to aggressively upgrade to MPEG4 yet as it doesn't grant as much as we can gain with our current technologies" statement essentially from Dish is... but putting that aside for the moment, and assuming there is some reason why going whole-hog into MPEG4 isn't cost-effective right now.

Since they have developed MPEG4 receivers, and that technology by their own admission is just fine... it does stand to reason that they would want to stop selling the 811 as soon as the 411/211 goes public. I know they don't want to destroy/waste inventory... but if they know they want to move to MPEG4 in a couple of years anyway, then the lest 811s they have in the field the better.

This applies to other receivers of course, just using 811 as one example since the 411/211 has been said to essentially be a replacement for that receiver.

Now, as yet I don't *think* the 411/211 has hit the market outside of their "beta" program... but once they flip the manufacturing/ordering switch I would hope they have the sense to not keep shipping 811s... and I would also hope they have been planning this such that they have been ramping down production of 811s to coincide with the new product launch.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

tower guy:
"...Consider that D* will be doing MPEG4 and 8PSK simultaneously..."

Did you mean E*? I don't think D* uses 8PSK.


----------

