# Satellite Changes - 8PSK SD



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The first "conversions" have begun ...

123 MALL (86 Local) (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
123 MALL (86 Local) (Shopping) 61.5° TP 14 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
219 ALIVE America's Auction Network 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
220 MALL (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Instant Order Preview - (was SD Instant Order Preview)
220 MALL (Shopping) 61.5° TP 14 SD 8PSK Instant Order Preview - (was SD Instant Order Preview)
221 MARKT (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
223 NEWSX NEWSMAX 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Instant Order Preview - (was SD Instant Order Preview)
224 RCTV (85 Local) (Infomercials) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Instant Order Preview - (was SD Instant Order Preview)
226 HSN2 Home Shopping Network 2 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Instant Order Preview - (was SD Instant Order Preview)
9410 LINK Link TV 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
9415 FSTV Free Speech TV 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
9642 FETV (82 Local) Family Entertainment TV 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
832 CNTRO Centroamerica TV 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK - (was SD)

The above channels are no longer available on non 8PSK receivers (flagged as "SD 8PSK" instead of "SD").

Note: The following channels can be seen on four digit numbers in the 6900's ---
Available 6/3 ...
6951 CNTRO Centroamerica TV 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6952 MALL (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6953 MARKT (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6954 NEWSX NEWSMAX 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6955 RCTV (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
Available 6/10 ...
6956 HSN2 Home Shopping Network 2 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6957 FETV Family Entertainment TV 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6958 FSTV Free Speech TV 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6959 LINK Link TV 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6960 ALIVE America's Auction Network 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6961 GEMS (Shopping) 110° TP 10 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6962 FUSE Fuse 119° TP 15 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6963 EPIX3 Epix 3 119° TP 15 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6964 BEINE beIN Sport Espanol 119° TP 15 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6965 SUND Sundance 119° TP 15 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6967 ESQNT Esquire Network 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6968 BABY1 Baby First TV 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6969 FXDEP Fox Deportes 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6970 GAC Great American Country 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6971 CNNES CNN Espanol 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6972 NTGEO National Geographic 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6973 HLMRK Hallmark Channel 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6974 SCI Science Channel 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6975 DISCF Discovery Family 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6976 FOOD Food Channel 119° TP 6 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6977 HGTV Home & Garden TV 119° TP 6 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6978 MTV MTV 119° TP 6 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6979 TRV The Travel Channel 119° TP 6 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6980 IFC Independent Film Channel 119° TP 6 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
6981 TNCK Teen Nick 110° TP 11 SD Hidden - *AVAILABLE*


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

So if I am reading this right - are those channels all still technically QPSK, but are just labeled differently so a QPSK receiver doesn't recognize them? Because to be changed to 8PSK, the whole transponder needs to be 8PSK, correct?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> So if I am reading this right - are those channels all still technically QPSK, but are just labeled differently so a QPSK receiver doesn't recognize them? Because to be changed to 8PSK, the whole transponder needs to be 8PSK, correct?


You are correct!  The 69xx feeds are the exact same feeds on the satellite as the "SD 8PSK" channels.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Is it new value of that tag what usually used to filter out HD8PSK channels 10 years ago when forced to discard expensive models 921 & 6000. and mandated to install 622?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Is it new value of that tag what usually used to filter out HD8PSK channels 10 years ago when forced to discard expensive models 921 & 6000. and mandated to install 622?


The temporary channels are "Type 92" ... which was used on QPSK SD channels on 8PSK transponders when DISH started using the Eastern Arc. Eventually DISH changed the channels to "Type A8" which is MPEG4 SD.

If I recall correctly, "Type 85" was MPEG2 HD on QPSK and "Type 91" was MPEG2 HD on 8PSK. "Type A6" was what I called HD ViP ... HD for ViP receivers only (not visible to older HD receivers). Nearly all HD channels have become "Type A4" - MPEG4 HD. I believe the one you are recalling is "A6".

It is a good "trick" - and desirable to keep legacy receivers from attempting to tune "SD 8PSK" channels that really are on 8PSK transponders. DISH might as well use it to hide channels from legacy receivers during the transition.

(BTW: There are also channel types that are XiP only ... channels that do not appear on ViP receivers.)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Yes, that was the A6 value, eg fake "MPEG-4" HD channels when in reality all of them been MPEG-2 that time (company did big lie to push out very expensive models 6000 $600 and DVR921 $1000 and force customers make switch to new ViP622; it was such deceptive tactic  ) ; I recall there was unofficial FW for model 6000 what perfectly did work with the A6 channels (FW has internal LOGICAL filter by the tag's values and by default it doesn't allow to tune to any channel if the value is not in "white" list of the values).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Yes, that was the A6 value, eg fake "MPEG-4" HD channels when in reality all of them been MPEG-2 that time (company did big lie to push out very expensive models 6000 $600 and DVR921 $1000 and force customers make switch to new ViP622; it was such deceptive tactic


All companies find themselves having to bend the truth to catch the people that won't give up their antiquated equipment that is holding everyone back due to its limitations.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> All companies find themselves having to bend the truth to catch the people that won't give up their antiquated equipment that is holding everyone back due to its limitations.


Most companies don't actually.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> All companies find themselves having to bend the truth to catch the people that won't give up their antiquated equipment that is holding everyone back due to its limitations.


 No they don't! 
I'm fairly sure lying about equipment or a product to promote a sale for a product a customer is paying for is against the law.
If dish wanted customers to upgrade their equipment , then Dish would should provide that for free, or let them out of their commitment when it's beyond the control of their customers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Changing to 8PSK, I presume will improve the pq on SD channels. Will this give dish more space on the birds?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Most companies don't actually.


Apparently you have limited insight into the business of software. As an example, Microsoft will use software tools in combination with registry entries to keep you from updating your computer. Apple has been using flags and anti-jailbreak measures into their iOS products to prevent installing and/or running software on older devices; not so much because the devices aren't capable, but because Apple doesn't want it to happen. iOS 9 is supposedly the first iOS major version that doesn't leave behind a generation of iDevices.

They talk a big talk about preserving the integrity and performance of the experience but in the end, it is about control of the environment so that they can move forward.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> Changing to 8PSK, I presume will improve the pq on SD channels. Will this give dish more space on the birds?


Which do you want, better PQ or more channels?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> Which do you want, better PQ or more channels?


It was asked Scott by Chalie personally during a private meeting with other forum's members (in Vegas ?) when first HD channels cames up ...

And the answer was ? Right ! More channels in 1440x1080 not in 1920x1080 ... HDlite here's come !


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Yes, that was the A6 value, eg fake "MPEG-4" HD channels when in reality all of them been MPEG-2 that time (company did big lie to push out very expensive models 6000 $600 and DVR921 $1000 and force customers make switch to new ViP622; it was such deceptive tactic  ) ;


I don't see what the problem is... The company sends out an announcement to all its customers that it is going to be changing over formats and everyone needs to upgrade legacy equipment that will no longer function. Usually these upgrades are free upgrades even... and eventually the cutover date comes. So instead of doing a hard cutover, they do a soft cutover so they can still try and prompt those last hanger-ons to upgrade before the real hard cutover happens.



damondlt said:


> I'm fairly sure lying about equipment or a product to promote a sale for a product a customer is paying for is against the law.
> If dish wanted customers to upgrade their equipment , then Dish would should provide that for free, or let them out of their commitment when it's beyond the control of their customers.


Dish does offer free upgrades... they also usually have these things known for some time (we've known about this one for months). They also aren't "lying" to "promote a sale"... after a point all this old equipment is no longer going to work, Dish is doing it in stages and still trying to give people a chance to switch equipment before it all goes away. The alternative would be for Dish to switch it all in one week and make lots of customers immediately mad even though they are the ones who kept ignoring the letters about the upcoming change.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Yes, that was the A6 value, eg fake "MPEG-4" HD channels when in reality all of them been MPEG-2 that time (company did big lie to push out very expensive models 6000 $600 and DVR921 $1000 and force customers make switch to new ViP622; it was such deceptive tactic  ) ; I recall there was unofficial FW for model 6000 what perfectly did work with the A6 channels (FW has internal LOGICAL filter by the tag's values and by default it doesn't allow to tune to any channel if the value is not in "white" list of the values).


I was one of those 921 owners. That buggy box was replaced 10 times (at E*'s expense, not mine). Then I briefly had a 942 which was replaced by my 1st 622. All at no cost to me (I'm on my 3rd 622 at the moment). At the time my 1st 622 showed up on my doorstep I purchased a UPS. I believe bad A/C may have been a factor in the short lived DVR's. While the 622's also went bad, they lasted a lot longer than the 921's.

BTW: There was one more factor in getting the 921's "off the street" - the TiVO suit! The 921 was allegedly a patent "infringing" DVR. The 622 is street legal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lying is such a mean word (I was going to say a harsh word, but the member "harsh" used the softer "bend the truth" phrase, not "lie").

As part of the prior upgrade to MPEG4 HD DISH made a decision not to support the previous receivers and to not allow discontinued receivers that were being removed from service to be used for new channels. Uplinking MPEG2 HD but marking it "ViP only" was a way to make sure the old receivers could not see the new channels (unless they were faulty). DISH was able to add channels for ViP receivers ... and send a clear message to people with an older receiver that the line had been drawn - no new channels.

For ViP receiver users it was good because they got new channels ... without DISH needing to immediately use MPEG4 on all new channels. The old customers did not hold back the new.

With the current conversion flagging channels allows DISH to give customers one last chance to upgrade without losing content. DISH could put up a 8PSK transponder and cram it full of channels but why waste the bandwidth when they can get the same effect with setting channel types. The alternative would be a "cold turkey" cut where the 69xx last chance channels were not offered.

Just like the old MPEG2 HD channels eventually lost their content to actual MPEG4 HD conversions _*the SD on QPSK channels will be going away*_. Perhaps DISH shouldn't prolong the inevitable ... but they are. One last chance.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

And the selection they picked in those mirrors was a good one, channels where the person responsible in the house for the account WILL be alerted by other people in the house. i.e. The teen losing MTV, TeenNick or Fuse will give their parent an earful for ignoring the multiple warnings over the past year, the wife will probably notice losing HGTV, Food and Hallmark, etc


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Apparently you have limited insight into the business of software. As an example, Microsoft will use software tools in combination with registry entries to keep you from updating your computer. Apple has been using flags and anti-jailbreak measures into their iOS products to prevent installing and/or running software on older devices; not so much because the devices aren't capable, but because Apple doesn't want it to happen. iOS 9 is supposedly the first iOS major version that doesn't leave behind a generation of iDevices.
> 
> They talk a big talk about preserving the integrity and performance of the experience but in the end, it is about control of the environment so that they can move forward.


Not even close to the same realm. These software examples didn't take away (for the most part) current features they just make the updates end.

Dish is obsolete my equipment and making it useless. That's complexity different. A first generation iPad will still operate today even if it hasn't been updated in years. These older dish receiver won't work at all soon...

Now since dish is replacing them I don't see an issue at all and I don't really call their current tactic lying at all myself. They said they would not be available after a certain date to customers with certain equipment and they are slowly making that happen. How they do the transition is arbitrary because we all know in the end it's for the reason they have stated.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And to be fair... most companies don't support hardware indefinitely. You could potentially have an old iPhone/iPad that one day will no longer be able to connect to a 3G/4G/whatever data service because it needs a newer SIM card that isn't compatible with the hardware. Maybe that will be a long way away, maybe not... but it could happen. There was a conversion from analog to digital with cellphones over a time... and one with analog to digital with OTA broadcasts... Lots of people with old equipment that were offered paths to upgrade or workaround, but some waited until after the eleventh hour and then had useless equipment.

Some things continue to work as long as you can make them work... other things depend on companies supporting them. Videogames that have online play... like EA football, basketball, etc... I don't know if they still work this way, but they used to only support older games for online play for a limited time... so say 2004 game was out, you'd only be able to use your 2003 game for another few months before you'd lose the online play feature. That's perhaps the closest I can come to an analogy to Dish here... in that it's a company obsoleting old stuff when they don't necessarily have to.

But also... customers don't have to stay with Dish... whether they upgrade you for free or not... you could go to DirecTV or your local cable company for TV... or "cut the cord"... so even if Dish took the "take it or leave it" approach (which they are not) I don't see a real problem with that. The receiver models that are being obsoleted haven't been manufactured for years... Dish hasn't been putting them in service unless they were replacing your old/failed one... and I don't think Dish has sold them in a long time.

I'd have a different argument if, say, Dish was selling equipment... then 6 months later saying "your equipment is no longer supported"... but anyone using this soon-to-be-obsolete equipment has been doing so for a very long time by now... and on top of that had a pretty good advance notice and I gather some good upgrade options from Dish.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...
> 
> But also... customers don't have to stay with Dish... whether they upgrade you for free or not... you could go to DirecTV or your local cable company for TV... or "cut the cord"... so even if Dish took the "take it or leave it" approach (which they are not) I don't see a real problem with that. The receiver models that are being obsoleted haven't been manufactured for years... Dish hasn't been putting them in service unless they were replacing your old/failed one... and I don't think Dish has sold them in a long time.
> 
> I'd have a different argument if, say, Dish was selling equipment... then 6 months later saying "your equipment is no longer supported"... but anyone using this soon-to-be-obsolete equipment has been doing so for a very long time by now... and on top of that had a pretty good advance notice and I gather some good upgrade options from Dish.


These high end [expensive] models has been sold to customers and wasn't used too long, so there was monetary issue for them ... plus the fake ViP-only flag came to obsolte highend models more then year ago before MPEG-4 streams appeared


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The receiver models that are being obsoleted haven't been manufactured for years... Dish hasn't been putting them in service unless they were replacing your old/failed one... and I don't think Dish has sold them in a long time.


Failures over the past few years have been replaced by 8PSK equipment, where possible. The equipment transition began four years ago when DISH started charging a fee on the 501/508 DVRs (and then crediting the fee). If I recall correctly the credit was promised for 24 months (allowing time for the replacement of the old receiver). But DISH did not force the replacement of those receivers until now ... 46 months later (with credits continuing for non-upgraded accounts).

People who want upgrades beyond what is needed to continue getting the same level of service as they are getting on their older receivers are getting special offers that require commitments. But the basic level of equipment to replace what is obsolete is being offered by DISH without charge.



P Smith said:


> These high end [expensive] models has been sold to customers and wasn't used too long, so there was monetary issue for them ... plus the fake ViP-only flag came to obsolte highend models more then year ago before MPEG-4 streams appeared


I believe people would have been more upset if their obsolete equipment displayed the new channels for the year and then channels started disappearing. DISH drew a line between old HD and new HD.

I wonder how long "Type 92" channels will be on QPSK transponders for this move. I noticed that many of the channels have "commercial" channel numbers that are still "QPSK SD". Will these need to be maintained for commercial accounts? When will DISH actually be able to move the channels to 8PSK transponders? (The channels will still be "Type 92" ... but actually on 8PSK transponders instead of QPSK.) Managing the commercial systems, especially those using analog distribution (individual receivers for each channel on the cable) is part of the challenge.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I have the 211k. I bought it for exactly that reason, to get the new "HD" channels, even if some were not in real HD, but I did get access to everything that way.Come to think about it, I did not even have an HD TV set at the time. The Toshiba is a EDTV. But I do have another Toshiba that is HD. It is nice to have as I do not need to get a new receiver now. Plus the 211k with the OTA tuner and adding the HDD, really made the receiver perfect for me. As far a pq goes, I am sure Dish will cram more channels in with any new available space. I do notice a big difference in pq on the 8PSK channels, even though in SD. OTA pq is always the best, especially on TV stations with no sub channels in HD.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Is there a list of what Dish still has in QPSK? I wonder how long it will be until the whole Western Arc is in 8PSK?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.

Look at the lists by satellite location ... at the top of each transponder there is a description for that transponder that includes either 8PSK or QPSK. Currently all Western Arc SD channels are on QPSK transponders.

The short answer to what DISH still has on QPSK transponders (Western Arc): Every SD channel.


----------



## bluegras (Jan 31, 2008)

after the conversion will this free up for more HD channels i hope there will be lots to come.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks for the link. I put it on my favorites list for the future. Any idea on how long the transition will take?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Apparently you have limited insight into the business of software. As an example, Microsoft will use software tools in combination with registry entries to keep you from updating your computer. Apple has been using flags and anti-jailbreak measures into their iOS products to prevent installing and/or running software on older devices; not so much because the devices aren't capable, but because Apple doesn't want it to happen. iOS 9 is supposedly the first iOS major version that doesn't leave behind a generation of iDevices.
> 
> They talk a big talk about preserving the integrity and performance of the experience but in the end, it is about control of the environment so that they can move forward.


There's a large difference. If Apple said that it was impossible to run iOS 8 on an iPhone 4 it would be a lie. I'm sure it would run but who knows really how well. What they say is that they don't support it and why they don't support it. You may disagree with their reasons but they're upfront about it. As far as Microsoft your statement is so vague either one of us could claim it to be factual for the situation. At the end of the day though as I stated most companies do not lie to their customer's. They may say things or have policies that people disagree with but doing something and falsifying why is a whole different issue.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> You may disagree with their reasons but they're upfront about it. As far as Microsoft your statement is so vague either one of us could claim it to be factual for the situation. At the end of the day though as I stated most companies do not lie to their customer's. They may say things or have policies that people disagree with but doing something and falsifying why is a whole different issue.


Apparently I live on a different planet than the one you live on.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The next batch of channels have been "converted" ...
126 SUND Sundance 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
164 FUSE Fuse 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
229 GEMS (Shopping Channel) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
382 EPIX3 Epix 3 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
873 BEINE beIN Sport Espanol 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK - (was SD)


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> The next batch of channels have been "converted" ...
> 126 SUND Sundance 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
> 164 FUSE Fuse 119° TP 15 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
> 229 GEMS (Shopping Channel) 110° TP 10 SD 8PSK Preview - (was SD Preview)
> ...


So this week Dish converted some of transponder 115 on 119. I am surprised that if Dish is doing this as a phased approach, why they don't convert all the channels on that transponder at once. Weather Nation, SEC Network, Outside Television, and Pursuit Television are also on that transponder. Thought all of them would have been converted.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Make a few channels disappear at a time ... trying to give people a hint.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Probably doing that to make sure they can handle the call volume of people complaining and needing a service call for it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Agreed... Even though Dish has been informing people for a long time now... there are still people who seem surprised that this is happening. IF they shut everything off at once, their phone network would probably crash!

I suspect they are going to do this slowly at first to gauge the volume. They know, after all, how many customers out there need to be switched out... and I expect eventually for them to ramp up the switchover as the volume of those existing customers goes down.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

perhaps catch "modified" IRDs ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

This week's "8PSK" list ...
165 GAC Great American Country 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
179 DISCF Discovery Family 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
181 TNCK Teen Nick 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
185 HLMRK Hallmark Channel 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
186 NTGEO National Geographic 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
191 ESQNT Esquire Network 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
193 SCI Science Channel 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK Instant Order - (was SD Instant Order)
823 BABY1 Baby First TV 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
855 FXDEP Fox Deportes 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK - (was SD)
859 CNNES CNN Espanol 110° TP 11 SD 8PSK - (was SD)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Two transponders have been actually converted to 8PSK!

*Transponders Changed*
110° TP 10 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 15 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK

123 (86) MALL (Shopping)
219 ALIVE America's Auction Network
220 MALL (Shopping)
221 MARKT (Shopping)
224 (85) RCTV (Infomercials)
226 HSN2 Home Shopping Network 2
227 (83) JTV (Shopping Channel)
229 GEMS (Shopping Channel)
255 QVC+ QVC Plus
269 REAL (Infomercials)
275 (72) YOUTV (Shopping)
472 ORDER Pre-Order PPV
832 CNTRO Centroamerica TV
988 DPRMO Showroom Channel
9415 FSTV Free Speech TV
9598 D500 Dish 500 Test Channel
9642 (82) FETV Family Entertainment TV
9644 (94) REAL (Infomercials)
9645 (95) DEAL (Advertising)

115 NOTAX No Satellite Tax Channel
126 SUND Sundance
164 FUSE Fuse
215 WN Weather Nation
265 BVOV Believer's Voice of Victory
297 NOTAX No Satellite Tax Channel
382 EPIXH Epix Hits
390 OUTSD Outside Television
393 PRST Pursuit TV
408 SEC SEC-ESPN Network
873 BEINE beIN Sport Espanol


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Question: With the posting of QPSK to 8PSK. you mention it was SD). Now switching to 8PSK does not mean HD does it? It does improve pq, but not quite to HD standards? Even though at 8PSK, isn't the channel still 480?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

All changing from QPSK to 8PSK means is that Dish is changing the number of bits on the transponder by approximately 150 %. You will also notice that they are using heavier FEC (forward error correction) which takes more bytes out of the programming budget. PQ wise - you should not notice any difference between QPSK and 8PSK (unless Dish has decided to allocate more bytes to a channel).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scooper said:


> All changing from QPSK to 8PSK means is that Dish is changing the number of bits on the transponder by approximately 150 %. You will also notice that they are using heavier FEC (forward error correction) which takes more bytes out of the programming budget.


It is good to remember both. Including the differences in FEC, DISH's throughput on an 8PSK transponder is about 23% higher than on a QPSK channel ... which I expect DISH to use for 23% more SD channels at the current PQ, not an increase in PQ of SD channels. (And the channels remain MPEG2 SD - so any benefit of MPEG4 encoding is not available.)

Take five QPSK SD transponders on western arc. Convert them to 8PSK and use four for the SD channels and free up one for HD channels. DISH had 30 QPSK ConUS transponders - free up one out of every five and DISH has six transponders for HD.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:


> Take five QPSK SD transponders on western arc. Convert them to 8PSK and use four for the SD channels and free up one for HD channels. DISH had 30 QPSK ConUS transponders - free up one out of every five and DISH has six transponders for HD.


I hope at some point when enough bandwidth becomes available, some of that is used for premium channels that are in HD, but delivered in SD. Tired of paying for premiums only to receive the SD version, and a horrible windowboxed SD version on top of that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If DISH delivered 16x9 SD instead of letterboxing there would be less demand for HD.
I have wanted 16x9 SD since I became a DISH customer in 2003 (there was a menu option for aspect ratio).
SD receivers could be programmed to provide the letterboxing on 16x9 channels ... and HD receivers could stretch to full screen.

(In the past I conceded that legacy receivers might not be able to letterbox ... but with another level of the oldest receivers now obsolete I don't see why any receiver left would not be able to have a working aspect ratio function.)

BTW: There are several channels on each of the new 8PSK transponders that have not been flagged as "SD on 8PSK". Customers attempting to tune these channels with obsolete receivers will get an error. (Channels flagged "SD on 8PSK" do not appear on obsolete receivers.)


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks for info. So it looks like going to 8PSK will be giving Dish more available space for more channels, instead of offering better pq?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

One could consider having ~50 more channels available in HD being an increase in PQ over leaving them in SD only. 

But yes, do not expect an increase in SD PQ.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

That seems to be the case today, people want more channels. Anyone know when the migration will end and everything will be switched over to 8PSK?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Nope, the plan is internal and not published.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

mwdxer said:


> That seems to be the case today, people want more channels. Anyone know when the migration will end and everything will be switched over to 8PSK?


I question that people want more channels. People want a la carte and quality over quantity. And that is why there are cord cutters, and cord nevers among the younger folk.


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

bluegras said:


> after the conversion will this free up for more HD channels i hope there will be lots to come.


Wait and see until DISH posts or makes the changes it is only guess work.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> That seems to be the case today, people want more channels.


This migration isn't about more channels ... it is about more HD channels. Which is effectively an increase in PQ over SD channels. There are channels that DISH doesn't carry ... and for each of those channels there are people who 1) know that channel exists and 2) want DISH to add it. But there are few channels where the demand is overwhelming for a particular channel.

The big push now is to increase PQ by adding HD versions of the channels. Some people (those who claim to never watch SD) might consider this to be adding channels - but content available today in SD is available today, just not in the higher HD quality. Same content - higher quality - more enjoyable to watch for the HD subscriber with no penalty for the SD sibscriber.



Wilf said:


> I question that people want more channels. People want a la carte and quality over quantity. And that is why there are cord cutters, and cord nevers among the younger folk.


For those who have HD service this is an (eventual) increase in quality. The 8PSK change is not going to change how channels are marketed ... they will still be sold in packages with a few a la carte choices.



mwdxer said:


> Anyone know when the migration will end and everything will be switched over to 8PSK?


Watch the skies ... or the Uplink Activity report. We'll let you know when it happens. Now that transponder encodings have actually changed to 8PSK for a couple of transponders I expect the rest of the transponders to follow suit as soon as practical for DISH.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Wilf said:


> I question that people want more channels.


You're responding to someone who is keenly interested in additional channels for the sake of additional channels.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> BTW: There are several channels on each of the new 8PSK transponders that have not been flagged as "SD on 8PSK". Customers attempting to tune these channels with obsolete receivers will get an error. (Channels flagged "SD on 8PSK" do not appear on obsolete receivers.)


So as soon as the transponder was changed to 8PSK, all the channels on the transponder are automatically converted to 8PSK even though we didn't see the "SD on 8PSK" change show up on the uplink report?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Signal's parameter s like modulation, polarity, error correction have no affect to channel's attributes: video and audio format,compression,quality or quantity directly.
Please separate the two independent kind of discussioned matters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> So as soon as the transponder was changed to 8PSK, all the channels on the transponder are automatically converted to 8PSK even though we didn't see the "SD on 8PSK" change show up on the uplink report?


The channels are not converted to 8PSK ... it is the transponder that was converted from QPSK to 8PSK. The channels will remain MPEG2 for the foreseeable future (until DISH replaces all non MPEG4 receivers).

As P Smith notes, the encoding of the channels on a transponder is separate from the encoding of the transponder. DISH uses MPEG2 and MPEG4 encoding for their SD and HD channels. DISH uses QPSK and 8PSK encoding for their transponders. Put any channel type on any transponder type. 8PSK transponders can carry more data than QPSK transponders, which is the reason why DISH is converting transponders to 8PSK.

All receivers get channel information from the satellites. There are tables streamed via satellite that describe each channel, what type of channel it is (technical parameters) and where that channel can be found on the system (transponder number). With 9788 "channels" on the system the channel list displayed is limited to only the channels your receiver can receive. Channels on satellites not found in your last check switch are eliminated from display along with channels you do not subscribe to (if they are marked as "hidden"). Receivers also remove channel by channel type ...

There is no reason for a 301, 501 or any other SD receiver to display a channel that receiver is not capable of displaying ... so the receiver is programmed to ignore all channels with the various HD channel types.

The 301, 501 etc cannot tune an 8PSK transponder ... so best practice would be to remove channels on 8PSK transponders from the channel list. The easy way to do this is to create a channel type (as DISH has done for the "MPEG2 SD on 8PSK" channels) and flag all SD content on 8PSK channels with that channel type. Receivers capable of tuning 8PSK transponders are programmed to receive those channels ... receivers not capable of tuning 8PSK transponders are programmed to ignore those channels.

The current channel types on many of the channels on the two converted transponders is incorrect. The channels are flagged as standard SD ... which means they are not filtered on a 301, 501 etc. They still show up in the channel list and when a customer attempts to tune the channel the customer sees a "signal loss" error message. If the channels were flagged as "MPEG2 SD on 8PSK" they would simply disappear from the guide.

As more transponders are converted DISH has the choice of changing the flag to "MPEG2 SD on 8PSK" and making any remaining 301, 501 etc receiver guides dwindle down to no channels ... or they can leave their current "SD" channel type flag on the channels and have customers get "signal loss" errors. At this point people should not be using 301, 501 etc receivers ... so the error message can be whatever gets people to convert their equipment.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> The channels are not converted to 8PSK ... it is the transponder that was converted from QPSK to 8PSK. The channels will remain MPEG2 for the foreseeable future (until DISH replaces all non MPEG4 receivers).
> 
> As P Smith notes, the encoding of the channels on a transponder is separate from the encoding of the transponder. DISH uses MPEG2 and MPEG4 encoding for their SD and HD channels. DISH uses QPSK and 8PSK encoding for their transponders. Put any channel type on any transponder type. 8PSK transponders can carry more data than QPSK transponders, which is the reason why DISH is converting transponders to 8PSK.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the excellent clarification. I didn't understand the portion of how any channel type could be put on any transponder type.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

And good practice of replies - do not quote other post in full. Cut Relevant part or in your case, when you reply righ after reference post - do not quote!


----------



## DBordello (Dec 16, 2006)

It might help to refer to 8PSk and QPSK as modulation; MPEG2 and MPEG4 as encoding.

That being said, I haven't been following along with DISH for very long. A couple of quick clarifications.

For starters, which of these combinations exist of broadcast and receivers:

QPSK, MPEG2, SD
QPSK, MPEG2, HD
QPSK, MPEG4, SD
QPSK, MPEG4, HD
8PSK, MPEG2, SD
8PSK, MPEG2, HD
8PSK, MPEG4, SD
8PSK, MPEG4, HD

It sounds like dish is depreciating QPSK. Is QPSK only used for transponders carrying SD content? 
Therefore, they are hoping to upgrade everyone to 8PSK receivers. Are all 8PSK receivers MPEG4 compatible? Why not make the MPEG4 transition simultaneously?
Are they upgrading everybody to HD compatible recievers? It seems like it would be a good idea to drop the duplicate SD feeds and let the receiver downres locally.
I think that covers my confusion on the matter, at the moment


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DBordello said:


> It might help to refer to 8PSk and QPSK as modulation; MPEG2 and MPEG4 as encoding.


That would help ... My favorite typo is calling transponders channels which really confuses the issue. 



DBordello said:


> For starters, which of these combinations exist of broadcast and receivers:
> 
> QPSK, MPEG2, SD
> QPSK, MPEG2, HD
> ...


Receivers vary ... HD receivers can receive any of the above, non-HD 8PSK receivers can do any of the non-HD combinations above. Obsolete HD receivers can do MPEG 2 HD, obsolete SD receivers can do QPSK MPEG2 SD.

DISH currently transmits the following combinations:
QPSK MPEG2 SD
QPSK MEPG4 HD
8PSK MPEG2 SD
8PSK MPEG4 SD
8PSK MPEG4 HD
(Plus audio and data formats.)



DBordello said:


> It sounds like dish is depreciating QPSK. Is QPSK only used for transponders carrying SD content?
> Therefore, they are hoping to upgrade everyone to 8PSK receivers. Are all 8PSK receivers MPEG4 compatible? Why not make the MPEG4 transition simultaneously?
> Are they upgrading everybody to HD compatible recievers? It seems like it would be a good idea to drop the duplicate SD feeds and let the receiver downres locally.


There is at least one HD channel on a QPSK transponder. DISH also has "QPSK Turbo" transponders on one satellite (77 west) that carry HD and SD channels.
Not all 8PSK receivers are MPEG4 compatible. That would be the next step. The receivers people are getting in the conversion vary ... those moving to Eastern Arc are getting HD MPEG4 receivers. Those remaining on Western Arc are getting 8PSK SD receivers. Upgrading everyone to HD now would be too expensive ... there are 8PSK SD receivers that can be redeployed. The less expensive path is to use the receivers they have.


----------



## DBordello (Dec 16, 2006)

James, 

Thank you for the detailed reply. I realize I asked a lot of questions. 

I'd think if you were swapping out receivers, you wouldn't want to do it again. That would require 8PSK/MPEG4 receivers at least, HD capable would be even better. 

Do you have a sense for what proportion of the capacity is filled by HD vs SD?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DBordello said:


> Do you have a sense for what proportion of the capacity is filled by HD vs SD?


As of March 2014 ... I need to update the charts but there has not been a lot of shift in transponders.








(Spotbeams reflect the number of transponders used for spotbeams, not the number of spotbeam transponders.)









(The "vacant" space has been filled now - but space can be freed up.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Nice charts. Curios what the difference is between locals and spot beams on the second one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Nice charts. Curios what the difference is between locals and spot beams on the second one.


Locals not on spot beams vs locals on spot beams. 
The satellite at 77 does not have spot beams but is used for locals (along with other channels).
(77 is not required unless one lives in a market with their locals on 77.)


----------



## DBordello (Dec 16, 2006)

Very interesting charts. 

Do you have a sense if moving everybody to HD receivers and de-duplicating SD/HD feeds would save much capacity?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Getting rid of SD duplicates certainly would not hurt from a bandwidth perspactive.
It won't happen for a while on Western Arc (pesky SD only receivers).
DISH uses the SD feeds for fallback when the HD signal is lost, so eliminating SD duplicates would eliminate a feature.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

129 is much better than it was several years ago, but once in a while, you get drop outs and the receiver does indeed switch to SD. I have seen it happen on TCM a few times, even when the weatehr was clear here. Though, if there powerful enough, and tall enough thruderstorms to the southwest, it could lead to loss of signal. 129 is so low in the sky, which plays a role in this. Also, iots signal is not as strong as 110 and 119. I am 3/4 mile SE of 40.1642° N, 105.1636° W.



James Long said:


> Getting rid of SD duplicates certainly would not hurt from a bandwidth perspactive.
> It won't happen for a while on Western Arc (pesky SD only receivers).
> DISH uses the SD feeds for fallback when the HD signal is lost, so eliminating SD duplicates would eliminate a feature.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nmetro said:


> 129 is so low in the sky, which plays a role in this. Also, iots signal is not as strong as 110 and 119. I am 3/4 mile SE of 40.1642° N, 105.1636° W.


I am surprised that you're having problems in that location with 129 ... when I think of people saying 129 is low in the sky I think of people in Pennsylvania, not Colorado.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FYI: The temporary channels in the 6900's were removed this afternoon but no additional transponders have been converted to 8PSK. (Most of the 6900's were broken for people with old receivers.)


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> Getting rid of SD duplicates certainly would not hurt from a bandwidth perspactive.
> It won't happen for a while on Western Arc (pesky SD only receivers).
> DISH uses the SD feeds for fallback when the HD signal is lost, so eliminating SD duplicates would eliminate a feature.


As I look at the amount of space gained from this 8PSK transition on WA, 6 transponders worth of HD is a decent amount, but if you compare to DirecTV and their bandwidth capacity, it would appear that this would dwarf that. Eliminating the SD duplicates right now isn't an option, and I know contractually probably wouldn't be allowed in some cases. And going the MPEG4 compression isn't an option as there are all these 8PSK MPEG2 receivers still out there. So two questions:

1) What else could Dish do to get more space?
2) When Dish puts up the new satellite at 110 later this year, will it allow for more bandwidth per transponder? Basically I am wondering if Satellite transponder space is like a computer hard drive - every year that goes along we can fit more bits into a smaller hard drive. Will a newer satellite allow transponders to have more bandwidth per transponder so they could fit more channels per transponder? Or is there a laws of physics limitation with the bandwidth and the frequencies the transponders operate at?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For the moment... there's not a lot of need for a lot of bandwidth... I mean, there are channels Dish doesn't have in HD... but not many, and not too many that are in "high" demand. After doing all this work, Dish can probably meet the current "demand" for new HD if they wanted.

I suspect any 4K Dish does will be in the form of PPV and specifically FOD PPV, so that really won't take up a channel in the traditional sense... so unless something weird happens, I'm not sure Dish will need as much bandwidth as DirecTV has at the moment for the foreseeable future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> 2) When Dish puts up the new satellite at 110 later this year, will it allow for more bandwidth per transponder? Basically I am wondering if Satellite transponder space is like a computer hard drive - every year that goes along we can fit more bits into a smaller hard drive. Will a newer satellite allow transponders to have more bandwidth per transponder so they could fit more channels per transponder? Or is there a laws of physics limitation with the bandwidth and the frequencies the transponders operate at?


There are physical limits to what can be done on a transponder. The transponder frequency is set in licensing and cannot be changed so the best that DISH (or DirecTV) can do is utilize the RF to the limits of technology. The satellite itself is the dumb link in the chain ... it receives a signal and transmits a signal but acts more like a mirror than a PC processing data. As a satellite ages signals can degrade ... so a new satellite can help to a certain extent. But there are physical limits that cannot be broken.

Where improvements can be made is on the ground. Switching from QPSK to 8PSK at the uplinks and receivers increases the number of bits transmitted between uplink and receiver ... but the increased bits comes with increased noise and more error correction is required. (Which is why going from two bits in QPSK to three bits in 8PSK is NOT a 50% increase in throughput.) Changing from MPEG2 to MPEG4 encoding uses less bits between uplink and receiver ... another change made on the ground regardless of the satellite in orbit.

The most effective changes are done on the ground. Unfortunately they must be done at both ends of the connection ... at the uplink as well as at the millions of receivers in use. If DISH decides to move past 8PSK to squeeze more bits out of the satellite chain they can only do what their receivers are already capable of doing - or replace all receivers. The same goes for moving past MPEG4. Or moving to MEPG4 when millions of deployed receivers cannot do better than MPEG2.

The most effective change that can be made with a new satellite is to put it in a new location and leave the old ones running. That also requires work on the ground (uplink centers aimed at the new location and new dishes to pick up the new location). But one cannot simply start broadcasting from a new location without permission. The new location is not allowed to interfere with any existing satellites and must be licensed.

Back to the new satellite for 110 ... the best that can be done is some shuffling. Perhaps the spot beams can be reorganized and free up a transponder or two. But do not expect major changes on the level that would come with a new satellite location or other major changes.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> For the moment... there's not a lot of need for a lot of bandwidth... I mean, there are channels Dish doesn't have in HD... but not many, and not too many that are in "high" demand. After doing all this work, Dish can probably meet the current "demand" for new HD if they wanted.
> 
> I suspect any 4K Dish does will be in the form of PPV and specifically FOD PPV, so that really won't take up a channel in the traditional sense... so unless something weird happens, I'm not sure Dish will need as much bandwidth as DirecTV has at the moment for the foreseeable future.


I was looking at the chart that compared Dish and Directv HD in the General satellite forum here, and seeing that Dish had almost 60 less full time HD channels including all the RSN's and more of the premium movie channels just got me thinking about how tight they are on space it seems. And Directv has a couple more test channels up where they are expanding. I am not sure what are high demand, I was processing the numbers and it seems that Dish is quite a bit behind.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I think Direct has more available space too.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> The most effective changes are done on the ground. Unfortunately they must be done at both ends of the connection ... at the uplink as well as at the millions of receivers in use. If DISH decides to move past 8PSK to squeeze more bits out of the satellite chain they can only do what their receivers are already capable of doing - or replace all receivers. The same goes for moving past MPEG4. Or moving to MEPG4 when millions of deployed receivers cannot do better than MPEG2.


I am sure the answer is "no" or else Dish would do this, but if MPEG2 vs MPEG4 just a different type of video file, couldn't Dish just send a software update to the remaining 8PSK compatible receiver to properly interpret MPEG4? I am thinking of computers again - if there is a new video format, I install a new codec to view it. Or if it is new hardware my computer can't understand, I install new drivers. I am not replacing my computer because of a new video format. I am sure Dish receivers are different so they have to be replaced, just thinking out loud here.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

DBS receivers generally have low performance CPUs, and that video decoding is done via hardware , so it's not just a matter of "download a new CODEC". Back when Dish and Direct TV first started - it was the logical decision - specialized decoding chips were less expensive than high performance general purpose CPUs (one computer we had came with a board to decode MPEG2 DVDs - on a 300 MHz Pentium II CPU). Today - putting in something like a 4core general purpose CPU would be much more practical, but you would still need at least a modest video output GPU..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

zippyfrog said:


> I was looking at the chart that compared Dish and Directv HD in the General satellite forum here, and seeing that Dish had almost 60 less full time HD channels including all the RSN's and more of the premium movie channels just got me thinking about how tight they are on space it seems. And Directv has a couple more test channels up where they are expanding. I am not sure what are high demand, I was processing the numbers and it seems that Dish is quite a bit behind.


I haven't done a literal count... but if you count 60, and are including the RSNs in that... it's a little misleading. Most people are only missing 1 or 2 RSNs in their market... yeah, multi-sport gets them all but most customers are not on multi-sport... so about half of that 60 are the RSNs... and honestly, I love me some sports, but I'm not feeling the need to have 24/7 RSNs in HD when I only really care about the games. A couple more part-time feeds would cover the games Dish misses sometimes due to overlap... without need to actually go 24/7 on all those RSNs.

Yeah, DirecTV does it... but who watches their RSN 24/7 anyway?

So you're probably only really talking about half-that figure as a "gap"... and remember too, Dish has some channels that DirecTV doesn't... so those are channels Dish already carries and doesn't have to add to "catch up" to DirecTV.

And then, whatever you're left with... isn't really in high-demand at this point. Remember when we used to have very active "when will channel YYY be in HD?" threads? We don't see much of that lately.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

A friend wants Dish to add Comcast Sports so her can get the Trailblazer games. But so far Dish has not added the channel. Local cable has it though.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> I was looking at the chart that compared Dish and Directv HD in the General satellite forum here, and seeing that Dish had almost 60 less full time HD channels including all the RSN's and more of the premium movie channels just got me thinking about how tight they are on space it seems.


Currently DISH has 25 feeds not counted in that list that they use for part-time RSNs. If they were to convert their part timer RSNs to full time those 25 feeds could be used for full-time without increasing the number of channels transmitted. (Although DISH would still need some part-time feeds for the alternate sports channels.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH converted 11 transponders on 110 early this morning to 8PSK.
At 110 there are now 17 8PSK ConUS transponders (including those used for HD), 10 transponders used for spotbeams and two ConUS transponders remaining in QPSK.

TP 16 "216" - 110.0W 12.44270 L SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK DVB-S
TP 21 "221" - 110.0W 12.51560 R SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK DVB-S

*Transponder Changes seen 8/6/15 at 3:00am ET (v02)*

*Transponders Changed*
110° TP 1 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 2 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 3 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 5 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 6 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 8 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 9 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 11 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 14 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 15 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
110° TP 24 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

When they start doing alot of 119 we'll know it's over.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Considering that DISH is not hiding the channels from obsolete receivers (making them show connection errors instead of removing unwatchable channels from the guide) I'd say that DISH is ready to pull the QPSK plug on the rest of the transponders.

Only 14 transponders to go on 119 (if all ConUS are converted). 119 does have more "core channels" than 119 on SD.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

Now that Dish has converted 13 transponders to 8PSK, does Western Arc have more free space than Eastern Arc? Or will WA have more once all of 119 is converted as well?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> Now that Dish has converted 13 transponders to 8PSK, does Western Arc have more free space than Eastern Arc? Or will WA have more once all of 119 is converted as well?


DISH has not consolidated the transponders ... so they are still running the same number of SD channels per 8PSK transponder as they did per QPSK transponder. No space will be freed up until the SD channels are consolidated. How much space is free (on both arcs) depends on how many channels DISH decides to put on each transponder and that is yet to be seen.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

zippyfrog said:


> I am sure the answer is "no" or else Dish would do this, but if MPEG2 vs MPEG4 just a different type of video file, couldn't Dish just send a software update to the remaining 8PSK compatible receiver to properly interpret MPEG4? I am thinking of computers again - if there is a new video format, I install a new codec to view it. Or if it is new hardware my computer can't understand, I install new drivers. I am not replacing my computer because of a new video format. I am sure Dish receivers are different so they have to be replaced, just thinking out loud here.


MPEG2/MPEG4 are different coding formats, not simply different `types` of video files. It's not a matter of interpretting MPEG4, it's having the ability to decode MPEG4. Receivers use hardware decoders and are limited to the coding formats supported by the decoder. This is done because it's more efficient, cost less in terms of producing and support, and reduces overall hardware spec requirements. Even if installing software codecs were possible, it's unlikely the receiver has the the available cpu & ram for full framerate playback (especially when deinterlacing is needed). Like trying to tow a yacht with a mini cooper.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> If DISH delivered 16x9 SD instead of letterboxing there would be less demand for HD.
> I have wanted 16x9 SD since I became a DISH customer in 2003 (there was a menu option for aspect ratio).
> SD receivers could be programmed to provide the letterboxing on 16x9 channels ... and HD receivers could stretch to full screen.


I couldn't disagree more. SD looks horrible on any decent HD tv. Altering the aspect ratio can't compensate for the lack of resolution and bitrate. I don't know a single person who would trade HD for widescreen SD.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

The problem with SD on most HD TV sets, is the TV Set does poorly in SD. The set is a HD set and not really set up for SD. I bought a Toshiba LCD HD set and when running the SD through the A/V in rather than the HDMI, I can adjust it better so the SD does look better. In comparison my old Toshiba EDTV (CRT), looks beautiful in SD. Nearly as good as a 720p picture on a newer LCD set. It is not the SD signal put out by Dish or cable, it is the newer TV sets of today. OTA TV looks better than any other form from satellite of cable. in HD or SD But, it is not the fault of the SD signal. It is just as good today as always. It is the fault of the cheap HD sets of today. I have also found that all sets are not created equal when is comes to the SD picture. When buying the new Toshiba, it took me some time to find a set decent enough in SD as I still watch a lot of SD,both OTA and Dish. People often look for the best picture in HD, ignoring the SD picture. Then they find that SD looks horrible on their new set. Another thing, I did not buy a 1080i HDTV, but a 720p, not much loss in the HD resolution, but is also gives me a better 480 resolution, not so much up converting.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

The stream (what you called `SD signal`) itself is absolutely a key component. More specifically the constraints of the encoder and the settings with which the stream was encoded, and output scale. It's not much an issue of an HD set doing poorly in SD - an HD tv can easily display SD exactly as intended (but looks stupid) - it's that you are trying to display low resolution content on a larger screen. Nobody likes having a nice big tv where only a portion of the screen is used. People tend to want the screen filled and an SD stream simply does not contain enough digital information to do that. That leaves 3 options; display the content in its native form, add more digital information by using upscaling algorithms, or replace your source with something higher quality. Of course a display closer in resolution to the content will give a better visual impression. More of the display is filled with actual video frame data rather than data generated mathetmatically. That's the reason your 720p gives you a better SD picture than a higher def tv would have. The more math you have to use to fill the display, the more you pay for it with image quality.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

beef jerky said:


> I couldn't disagree more. SD looks horrible on any decent HD tv. Altering the aspect ratio can't compensate for the lack of resolution and bitrate. I don't know a single person who would trade HD for widescreen SD.


You sir - have a not so great HDTV set then. MY 32 inch 720p class TV looks great whether it's getting HDTV signals or SDTV class signals. And it doesn't matter which input I use - composite, S-Video, Component, or HDMI - they all look good on SD programming. I use the mode that is "Aspect" - this is full screen on HDTV 16x9 programming, and full height with sidebars on 4x3 programming. Dish SD channels that do 16x9 letterbox get a band of black on all 4 sides - selecting Full Screen blows it up to fill the screen like HD 16x9.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Half of my network fare is in 720p anyway, ABC, FOX, & MYTV. NBC, CBS, & PBS are in 1080i. I went with 720p for the reason I watch a lot of SD. I am a fan of the older TV shows like are aired on METV, COZI, etc and they are all in SD. If I record anything to a DVD, it ends up is 480' anyway. A good 480' studio quality SD picture can look very sharp, but Dish, Direct, cable does not give the bandwidth needed, so what you end up with is a soft focus picture.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scooper said:


> You sir - have a not so great HDTV set then.


I agree. Any decent HDTV should be able to display a decent SD signal. Perhaps he doesn't have access to a decent SD source to upconvert to SD (such as an overcompressed DirecTV SD signal) or has a HDTV with a poorly designed upconverter.

I have a 1080p display ... and while HD is obviously better than SD. SD isn't garbage on my display. But then I have decent quality SD sources (DVDs etc). If one bought in to the pixel argument that he makes then one would never buy a 4K set since (following his theory) HD would look lousy on a 4K. Yet there are people with 4K sets report HD looks better on a 4K screen than on a HD screen. That is because the TV set knows what it is doing ... it has a decent upconverter that displays HD on 4K despite not having enough information in the input stream to specify every pixel. A decent HDTV would handle SD just as well as a decent 4K TV handles HD.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

The physical size of the TV plays a role, too. Depending on the source, displaying 480 on a 70 inch screen might not look so good when compared to the same source on a 32 inch display. I agree with mwdxer when he said the DISH SD feed, compared to the same channel in HD, looks soft focused. And, that is happening with the video scaler in the Hopper, not the AVR or the TV.

Edit: BTW, I suppose it's possible that some folks might have their Hopper (which as far as I know can't be disabled), their AVR and their TV video scaler all enabled at the same time.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Your picture quality can only be as good as the weakest link. Moving all feeds that have no Hi Definition feed to a 480p 16x9 picture could make it much nicer to look at but its NEVER going to be acceptable to someone like me to use that instead of an Hi Definition feed. It may look good but it's not Hi Definition. I want stuff in Hi Definition and I'll bet most dish subs do to.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

scooper said:


> You sir - have a not so great HDTV set then. MY 32 inch 720p class TV looks great whether it's getting HDTV signals or SDTV class signals. And it doesn't matter which input I use - composite, S-Video, Component, or HDMI - they all look good on SD programming. I use the mode that is "Aspect" - this is full screen on HDTV 16x9 programming, and full height with sidebars on 4x3 programming. Dish SD channels that do 16x9 letterbox get a band of black on all 4 sides - selecting Full Screen blows it up to fill the screen like HD 16x9.


Your assumption is wrong. My tvs is one area where I'm willing to pay more for better quality. It seems you've missed where I said, "It's not much an issue of an HD set doing poorly in SD - *an HD tv can easily display SD exactly as intended* (but looks stupid) - it's that you are trying to display low resolution content on a larger screen". The closer your output frame is to the content video frame size, the better the image will look. The farther away it is, the worse it looks. There's no getting around that as it's based on physical characteristics.



James Long said:


> I agree. Any decent HDTV should be able to display a decent SD signal. Perhaps he doesn't have access to a decent SD source to upconvert to SD (such as an overcompressed DirecTV SD signal) or has a HDTV with a poorly designed upconverter.
> 
> I have a 1080p display ... and while HD is obviously better than SD. SD isn't garbage on my display. But then I have decent quality SD sources (DVDs etc). If one bought in to the pixel argument that he makes then one would never buy a 4K set since (following his theory) HD would look lousy on a 4K. Yet there are people with 4K sets report HD looks better on a 4K screen than on a HD screen. That is because the TV set knows what it is doing ... it has a decent upconverter that displays HD on 4K despite not having enough information in the input stream to specify every pixel. A decent HDTV would handle SD just as well as a decent 4K TV handles HD.


In addition to my reply above, the `pixel argument` is not a theory, it's math plain and simple. I will say however that quality is subjective. For example, some people prefer a sharper image and it may easily be the case that the person saying HD looks better on his 4K tv uses a better sharpening algorithm. There are a lot of adjustments that affect what video frames looks like and considering no 2 pairs of eyes see identically, you have to concede that images will in fact look better to some people than others.

Obtaining quality content is a non-issue for me. What you're not considering is the size of my displays (smallest is a 60"), and my personal preference. When I said, "an HD tv can easily display SD exactly as intended (*but looks stupid*)", I'm saying I don't like watching SD content on HD displays because unused display space is distracting to me and I prefer content be displayed in it's native form. It has nothing to do with the quality of content I can access and everything to do with my displays and personal taste.



Blowgun said:


> The physical size of the TV plays a role, too. Depending on the source, displaying 480 on a 70 inch screen might not look so good when compared to the same source on a 32 inch display.


That's correct and I explained why in my previous post.

One of the problems with certain satellite tv is the limited bandwidth. It's typically overcompressed. Why? Because the provider needs enough bandwidth to carry everything else. Since bandwidth is limited It's a constant game of give and take.. Any time you want to add channels or increase bitrates, that bandwidth has to come from somewhere. A compromise has to occur. It's not the end of the world but the quality sacrifices become blatantly evident once you start comparing a typical 5-8Mbit stream vs. say something 4-5x that.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I want stuff in Hi Definition and I'll bet most dish subs do to.


Yes, absolutely. Providers don't spend money advertising how many SD channels they have, they always go on about how many HD channels they have - because that's what customers want. The more antiquated SD becomes, and the less demand there is for it, the more it's going to disappear. Some people will always resist change but the writing is on the wall for SD, it has been for some time.


----------



## Blowgun (May 23, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I want stuff in Hi Definition and I'll bet most dish subs do to.


Yes, but not just any stuff. Personally, I'd like to see some of the missing HD premium movie channels that I'm paying extra for get the HD treatment. I don't want to see, randomly picking, MALL go HD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

While discussing current moment of SD channels, you are totally miss historical changes of SD sat streams. They went from good eg close to DVD quality first years to miserable displeasure today.
Look at objective numbers: stream 4-5-6 Mbps to 1 Mbps or less today, resolution down from 720*480 to 354*480/240 today.
What you talking is not a butter anymore


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

The best pq I have seen from a standard def picture are some DVD's, OTA (Not sub channels) or a direct feed from a satellite (Big Dish feed). The good pq is out there, except many do not use it. The sub channels OTA here run from 5 mpls down to less than 2. The ones in the 3-4 range look pretty good, but still not as good as the direct satellite feed. If an OTA station is using 720p for the HD, then they may offer better pq on the subs too. In reality until a person has a larger screen seing the difference between 720p and 1080i is hard to do, even sitting side by side.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

beef jerky said:


> In addition to my reply above, the `pixel argument` is not a theory, it's math plain and simple. I will say however that quality is subjective.


Math is math but you are expressing a theory. Using math to attempt to prove a theory does not turn subjective opinions into facts. As mentioned in one of the 4K threads where I am sure that we had this argument before (with someone with a different username expressing your opinion) - there was a time before HD where videophiles would brag about the excellent picture quality on their large screen TVs. Filling a 50" or larger screen with the only signal they had available ... "standard definition".

What you may have missed in my original post is a preference for 16x9 SD over 4x3 SD. It was not a preference for 16x9 SD over HD ... just a desire to have letterboxed channels use as much of the picture as possible for picture and not letterbox bars. Using "math" a letterboxed to SD picture could be considered 360i or 360p. 120 lines that could be used to describe the image are used to describe "black". I'd rather that they be used to describe the colored part of the image.

A widescreen DVD is going to look better than a letterbox DVD zoomed and cropped. THAT is the change that I wanted DISH to make since I became a subscriber more than a decade ago.

Going back to the videophiles fawning over their 50" (or larger) SD TVs ... in more recent years we have people arguing to the death that HD channels are better than SD channels even though the source material was not HD. Upconverted to HD at the content provider then compressed for delivery to the distributor and satellite chain when it may have been more efficient to transmit a higher quality SD signal and let the end user receiver do the upconvert (if needed).



P Smith said:


> While discussing current moment of SD channels, you are totally miss historical changes of SD sat streams. They went from good eg close to DVD quality first years to miserable displeasure today.
> Look at objective numbers: stream 4-5-6 Mbps to 1 Mbps or less today, resolution down from 720*480 to 354*480/240 today.
> What you talking is not a butter anymore


Using objective numbers one might discover that the bit size of today's HD streams is not much better than a high quality SD stream a decade ago. A HD picture that is (per math) six times the number of pixels sounds better when one doesn't look at the number of bits allotted to its transmission. Today on DISH HD is given only twice as much satellite space per channel as the historical SD version. Transmitting six time the number of pixels in twice the number of bits ... how does that math work?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

mwdxer said:


> The best pq I have seen from a standard def picture are some DVD's, OTA (Not sub channels) or a direct feed from a satellite (Big Dish feed). The good pq is out there, except many do not use it. The sub channels OTA here run from 5 mpls down to less than 2. The ones in the 3-4 range look pretty good, but still not as good as the direct satellite feed. If an OTA station is using 720p for the HD, then they may offer better pq on the subs too. In reality until a person has a larger screen seing the difference between 720p and 1080i is hard to do, even sitting side by side.


the DSNG feeds usually come with max [15 Mbps] bitrate, that's why you can say - yeah, it's have DVD quality (some of them have 4:4:4 sampling too)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> Using objective numbers one might discover that the bit size of today's HD streams is not much better than a high quality SD stream a decade ago. ... how does that math work?


umm, are you old enough to remember HD in MPEG2 ?  then the your phrase would be correct, else just need to mention bitrate/resolution and compression algo, perhaps chroma sampling too


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> Math is math but you are expressing a theory. Using math to attempt to prove a theory does not turn subjective opinions into facts. As mentioned in one of the 4K threads where I am sure that we had this argument before (with someone with a different username expressing your opinion) - there was a time before HD where videophiles would brag about the excellent picture quality on their large screen TVs. Filling a 50" or larger screen with the only signal they had available ... "standard definition".


Nothing I've said has to do with theory. The process of using mathetics to generate fill data isn't a theory. What the end result of that process looks like is subjective but a persons interpretation is not theory either. I'm not sure what exactly you think is theory here. I can't speak to some other conversation that took place with some other person in some other thread since I wasn't a part of it but I will ask that the mention of "videophiles" be left out of this one. There aren't a lot of people I've found who have a good grasp or understanding of how coding and image (re)creation works. It can be a complex topic to discuss and hearing "videophiles" ramble on is like fingernails on a chalkboard. 



> What you may have missed in my original post is a preference for 16x9 SD over 4x3 SD. It was not a preference for 16x9 SD over HD ...


When you said, "If DISH delivered 16x9 SD instead of letterboxing there would be less demand for HD", I did read that as a generalized comment and a preference of widescreen SD over HD. It isn't just filling a widescreen display that people want, they also want high resolution and better image quality. The demand is for great HD content, not great widescreen SD content. That's why I strongly disagree with your assertion.



> Going back to the videophiles fawning over their 50" (or larger) SD TVs ... in more recent years we have people arguing to the death that HD channels are better than SD channels even though the source material was not HD. Upconverted to HD at the content provider then compressed for delivery to the distributor and satellite chain when it may have been more efficient to transmit a higher quality SD signal and let the end user receiver do the upconvert (if needed).


I despise when providers do that and sadly it's a common practice, especially among sat providers. I cringe whenever I hear someone going on about how great their <device here> upscales. It's as if they've never experienced real quality HD content for comparison. I understand upscaling from a business standpoint, but it robs the customer of a great (native) HD experience. The only thing worse than overcompressed content is upscaled overcompressed content.



> Using objective numbers one might discover that the bit size of today's HD streams is not much better than a high quality SD stream a decade ago. A HD picture that is (per math) six times the number of pixels sounds better when one doesn't look at the number of bits allotted to its transmission. Today on DISH HD is given only twice as much satellite space per channel as the historical SD version. Transmitting six time the number of pixels in twice the number of bits ... how does that math work?


DISH isn't known for having great HD to begin with but one thing to remember is h264 is a huge improvement over mpeg2. Comparing sizes & bitrates is meaningless without comparing the coding formats too.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I generally use the partial stretch mode as I do not like the 4:3 box. Even adding gray or black borders do not solve the issue. Some SD OTA channels, the TV station runs 6:9 anyway. But they do not all. Dish's HD is fine, but OTA HD is better, especially a TV station that has no sub channels. KOIN Portland uses a mlps of 17.75 as they have no subs. Any idea what rate Dish uses? It probably varies from channel to channel, I would guess.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

beef jerky - James and me BOTH have more than a decade of service with Dish, starting out when HDTV was not even a twinkle in the eye of anybody related to delivery of channels to paying customers


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

scooper said:


> beef jerky - James and me BOTH have more than a decade of service with Dish, starting out when HDTV was not even a twinkle in the eye of anybody related to delivery of channels to paying customers


I'm sure DISH appreciates your loyalty but I don't see any relevance how long you've been a subscriber has to anything at all.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

beef jerky said:


> I'm sure DISH appreciates your loyalty but I don't see any relevance how long you've been a subscriber has to anything at all.


To put it politely ... we know what we are talking about.

BTW: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Two plus two equals four is generally accepted as a fact, but what that math means is an opinion.


----------



## beef jerky (Nov 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> To put it politely ... we know what we are talking about.
> 
> BTW: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
> Two plus two equals four is generally accepted as a fact, but what that math means is an opinion.


There's no credibility in the premise that being a longtime tv subscriber gives you any knowledge or expertise in video coding techniques and algorithms, image structuring, subimaging, processing, or anything else. Watching tv and knowing a few terms doesn't make anyone an expert on how the images are created, delivered, and ultimately displayed on your tv (*delivery is a whole other topic). Also, I find that when a person has to tell others that they know what they're talking about, it's because the content of their posts fail to do it. That's especially true when it comes to many self-proclaimed "videophiles" which is exactly why I asked that we please keep them out of the conversation. To those individuals, consider for a moment that some people you come into contact with might have a real resume in the area you think you know so much about.

Let's keep the dialog civil. It's ok to agree to disagree. Those who truly have knowledge in this area will continue to be knowledgeable and those who don't will hopefully stop sticking their chest out long enough to learn a thing or two.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Please note that the topic of this thread is DISH Network's conversion to 8PSK.
To continue the "number of pixels" off-topic argument please find one of the existing threads.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH has not consolidated the transponders ... so they are still running the same number of SD channels per 8PSK transponder as they did per QPSK transponder. No space will be freed up until the SD channels are consolidated. How much space is free (on both arcs) depends on how many channels DISH decides to put on each transponder and that is yet to be seen.


You had a post earlier that said if Dish were to take 5 transponders of QPSK and convert them to 8PSK, 4 would be for SD and 1 would be for HD. When you did that math, were you assuming 18 SD channels (like transponder 1 on 110 has) so an 8PSK SD transponder would have capacity for 21-22 SD channels now? Just trying to get a feel for how many channels each 8PSK SD transponder on WA will hold when Dish finally moves stuff around to consolidate the transponders.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was not looking at a number of SD channels ... only a 23% increase in bits on an 8PSK transponder vs QPSK. Roughly, five transponders becomes four freeing up one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The end of most QPSK on 119.
Transponders 14, 15, 19 and many spotbeams remain QPSK. Most ConUS is now 8PSK.

*Transponder Changes seen 8/20/15 at 2:00am ET (v22)*

*Transponders Changed*
119° TP 6 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 8 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 9 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 10 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 11 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 12 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 13 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 15 changed from SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK to SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK
119° TP 16 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 17 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 18 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 20 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK
119° TP 21 changed from SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK to SR: 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK

There were also a lot of channel shifts around 3am. I have not checked to see if a transponder was freed up or if it was just deck chair realignment.

Also note transponder 15 was restored to QPSK.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Doing a transponder signal check both before and after - I lost about 5 points on the conversion, but there's still more than enough on all converted transponders.Everybody that's ever made a comment about Western Arc having higher signal strength - it's true. But that doesn't mean there isn't enough on eastern arc.


----------



## Jackson85 (Aug 25, 2015)

I currently have two VIP612 HD DVRs and one VIP722k HD DVR. Will these become obsolete, where Dish will not support them? Is this a way for Dish to force their customers into getting the Hopper, in order to keep their channels, or in order to get channels only with the Hopper?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The ViP receivers are good and should be around for a few more years.
Everything becomes obsolete eventually ... but the receivers recently obsoleted are much older models than the ViPs.


----------

