# ESPN To Pull Down MPEG-2 Feeds On June 30



## bluegras (Jan 31, 2008)

ESPN To Pull Down MPEG-2 Feeds On June 30
Sports Programmer Says 98% of Affiliates Have Signed On to Receive MPEG-4
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 5/25/2011 3:37:09 PM

Looking to cut down on satellite transit costs, ESPN is converting to all MPEG-4 distribution effective June 30 -- dropping the four MPEG-2 simulcasts of its HD services to become one of the first programmers to phase out the older compression format altogether.

The sports programmer said 98% of affiliates have signed on for the switchover at this point and expects all of those to be equipped before the June 30 deadline.


> http://www.multichannel.com/article/468806-ESPN_To_Pull_Down_MPEG_2_Feeds_On_June_30.php


----------



## splish (Nov 7, 2002)

I am using a DP301, a MPEG 2 receiver. Will I still be able to get ESPN?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

This is for cable and DBS operators. You will be fine


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

splish said:


> I am using a DP301, a MPEG 2 receiver. Will I still be able to get ESPN?


This only affects how your provider gets the stations, not how you get them from your provider. Although, at some point, I'm sure most of the providers want to do the same thing.


----------



## moghedien (Dec 3, 2007)

splish said:


> I am using a DP301, a MPEG 2 receiver. Will I still be able to get ESPN?


Is the 301 a HD receiver? If not, then you are not receiving these HD feeds anyway...


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

This isn't applicable to end users. What this does is saves ESPN from sending out HD and SD feeds to providers. The receiver cable and satellite companies will take the MPEG-4 feed and split it into HD and SD feeds. Cable operators who have ESPN on an analog channel have tp convert the feed to that.

Don't worry, the big providers have already switched over.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

moghedien said:


> Is the 301 a HD receiver? If not, then you are not receiving these HD feeds anyway...


The 301 receiver is not an HD box.


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

"adkinsjm" said:


> This isn't applicable to end users. What this does is saves ESPN from sending out HD and SD feeds to providers. The receiver cable and satellite companies will take the MPEG-4 feed and split it into HD and SD feeds. Cable operators who have ESPN on an analog channel have tp convert the feed to that.
> 
> Don't worry, the big providers have already switched over.


is that how it works? That is probably why ESPN hasn't used the ESPNHD logo anymore, right? I would imagine then all the SD versions of ESPN will be in letterbox then? ESPN HD doesn't leave a clean place for providers to cut the edges.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Yes this will mean that ESPN is sending out a HD feed only. But does it also not mean that now with ESPN being all HD they will raise there rates for new upcoming contracts to cover this cost? Meaning higher bills for everyone?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

adkinsjm said:


> What this does is saves ESPN from sending out HD and SD feeds to providers.


You are reading beyond the release. All they are talking about are HD channels - not pulling SD from satellite distribution to cable/satellite providers.

There are many (and growing) channels that no longer produce a separate SD feed ... but that isn't what this article is about. It is about not spending satellite space on MPEG2 HD when MPEG4 HD is now available.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Obviously rates will not go down, but by dropping the duplicate older MPEG2 feeds of their HD channels, it actually saves them money since they don't have to multicast the same crap in 2 formats. I wish all the content providers would just hurry up and switch over to all MPEG4 to save money.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Wonder if the PQ will improve?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Wonder if the PQ will improve?


Only if they were bitstarving the feeds in the 1st place....it could free up a bit of transponder space for D*.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> You are reading beyond the release. All they are talking about are HD channels - not pulling SD from satellite distribution to cable/satellite providers.


Except that ESPN *is* pulling SD from satellite distribution. The article may not mention it, but that is what's happening.


----------



## geoff2 (Feb 25, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Except that ESPN *is* pulling SD from satellite distribution. The article may not mention it, but that is what's happening.


Has that already happened? I have an H24 hooked up to a old-fashioned 4:3 CRT, and until a few weeks ago I got the ESPN channels in SD, per the preferences, along with TNT, TBS, etc., all the channels with HD and SD equivalents. A few weeks ago, ESPN2 went HD only and is now letterboxed on the screen, and a few days ago ESPN went HD only as well. At my gym, which uses Dish network, the ESPN feed was in SD on their 4:3 TVs on Wednesday (last time I was there) but letterboxed today.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

geoff2 said:


> Has that already happened?


No, it's happening on June 30th. And providers will still distribute SD versions of the channels. The only difference is that ESPN is sending out *only* the HD version, and the receiver at the provider's headend will output both the HD and letterboxed SD version from the single HD version.

This is why the BottomLine and pillarboxes haven't said "HD" in them for the past couple months.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Essentially, ESPN is going to what FOX has..the splicer. It allows both HD and SD output using what's known as AFD (determines full frame in SD or letterboxed)


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Terry K said:


> Essentially, ESPN is going to what FOX has..the splicer.


No, not even close. The Splicer is a totally different beast, and actually has very little to do with AFD.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No, not even close. The Splicer is a totally different beast, and actually has very little to do with AFD.


Um, you're wrong. Totally wrong. It passes through the AFD coding and in some cases actually does the switch itself. Its got to be passed through somehow.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Terry K said:


> Um, you're wrong. Totally wrong.


Um no, I'm not.

The Splicer is a system that can switch between ATSC satellite streams and insert graphics over the video. The whole point of the Splicer is simplicity, since Fox is generating the ATSC stream in LA, the affiliates don't need encoders and just pass the Splicer output directly to the transmitter. This allowed Fox affiliates to start broadcasting network programming in HD without buying all of the new equipment a traditional fronthaul system requires.

The reason Splicer makes AFD easier to implement for Fox is because Fox handles the ATSC encoding, and can make sure the AFD data is there for broadcast on all affiliates. For the other networks, while they can send AFD data just like Fox, each affiliate handles the final ATSC encoding and can configure their encoder to disregard the network's AFD data if they wish.

However, no matter if it's Fox or any other network, the *final* use of the AFD data occurs at the cable headend. Their decoder decides whether it wants to act on the AFD or not, and formats the SD signal appropriately.

ESPN, on the other hand, is using AFD to control their own decoder, and mandating that the cable companies use that SD output. There is absolutely no similarity in the architure of the two systems you're trying to compare. Yes, they both have _something_ to do with AFD, but so does a $50 ATSC converter box from Radio Shack. Is that essentially the Splicer too? 

You're the one who is totally wrong. It's clear that you don't have a deep technical understanding of either system, because I actually do. You should stop now, you're already in way over your head.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> Fox is generating the ATSC stream in LA, the *affiliates don't need encoders* and just pass the Splicer output directly to the transmitter.


FOX stations need encoders. The splicer switches between the pre-encoded satellite streams and the local encoder. It also has the ability to insert logos and now other images and text crawls without fully decoding and reencoding the signal. The system also provides shaping of the ATSC output.

Without an encoder at the station there would be no ATSC signal transmitted. Even when the FOX network programming is on the air the station's encoder needs to stay online to provide the ATSC information that is not generated by the splicer system.

That being said ... AFD control of the SD output is just a minor feature - a flag in the program stream. A FOX style splicer system is overkill for simply flipping a SD output between letterbox and cropped.

However: Cable system and satellite providers have equipment that can insert local content into the national satellite streams. How similar this equipment is to the FOX Splicer is a good question. It doesn't need to do the logos and crawls but a smooth transition between the received MPEG2/MPEG4 feed and a local source commercial playback is desired.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> FOX stations need encoders.


Obviously. That's what I get for trying to post at 3am. :lol:


James Long said:


> That being said ... AFD control of the SD output is just a minor feature - a flag in the program stream.


Yes, that was my main point. Saying that ESPN is now essentially using a Splicer because of AFD is ridiculous.


James Long said:


> However: Cable system and satellite providers have equipment that can insert local content into the national satellite streams. How similar this equipment is to the FOX Splicer is a good question.


There isn't much similarity. A key feature of the Splicer is inserting content over the ATSC stream without having to decode and re-encode the stream. This is not an issue for commercial insertion, since it's switching to a local source. It just has to make sure it's at an appropriate point in the network stream, which isn't difficult.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Obviously. That's what I get for trying to post at 3am. :lol:
> 
> Yes, that was my main point. Saying that ESPN is now essentially using a Splicer because of AFD is ridiculous.
> 
> There isn't much similarity. A key feature of the Splicer is inserting content over the ATSC stream without having to decode and re-encode the stream. This is not an issue for commercial insertion, since it's switching to a local source. It just has to make sure it's at an appropriate point in the network stream, which isn't difficult.


Actually there's another reason entirely they're using the splicer. The splicer spec also allows ESPN to control *what* source is put out over the cable system. Eg, if they have 3 alternate feeds going, they can switch things without the local cable operator's intervention.

FOX already uses this for NFL and MLB games, it allows them to feed specific events without a MC op typically having to be involved. This is a much easier solution for cable operators as well.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Terry K said:


> Actually there's another reason entirely they're using the splicer. The splicer spec also allows ESPN to control *what* source is put out over the cable system. Eg, if they have 3 alternate feeds going, they can switch things without the local cable operator's intervention.


Apparently you missed the point: ESPN isn't using the splicer or anything like it.


----------

