# Best way to add HD capacity



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

I was thinking about E*'s HD capacity crunch and got to wondering about something. Why doesn't E* eliminate some of the junk HD they carry? I mean lets face it... half the Voom channels are a waste. They were nice when HD feeds were hard to come by, but now they just show the same junk over and over again. I say dump the Voom lineup and add more attractive channels. I wonder if there is some sort of requirement for E* to carry these channels? Doesn't E* own Voom anyway? 

So what do you guys think?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

They may be junk to you but not to others. Hows about doing away with the junk TBS, NBA, HNL and BTN channels instead?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, if we are getting rid of junk, let's get rid of all the channels I don't want whether they are SD or HD... and only give me the channels I want. If you like them? Tough


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

You guys are waaaay too sensitive.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

Wouldn't you guys like to have FX, USA, SciFi, VH1, Spike, etc...??


----------



## PTown (Aug 18, 2007)

Sorry but not everyone shares your opinion and no I wouldn't want any of those channels over Voom, none of them.

If you wanted a legitimate discussion about adding HD capacity you sure went about it the wrong way.


----------



## eatonjb (Nov 21, 2006)

first the best way to get more capacity is get everyone off MPEG2 to MPEG4, but this takes time , since it requires new hardware. 

second get rid of TBS and TNT untill they actualy have shows that are HD, not stretch-o-vision (good movie selections, but they are never really HD, WHY??!?!)

third , new sats, (again this needs new hardware)

four, move stations from one sat to another, I think they are doing this already with the special stations.

they could over compress some of the HD's but i am sure people would complain.

only time will tell what really happens..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Gilitar said:


> Wouldn't you guys like to have FX, USA, SciFi, VH1, Spike, etc...??


Maybe, at least some of them... but not at the expense of dropping other channels that I watch. Besides, some of the new HD channels do not broadcast as much HD as the Voom channels. Take TBS for instance... virtually no HD since baseball.

When you start a thread based on the premise that we should give up channels that you don't like in order to get channels that you want... you shouldn't be surprised if other people have similar opinions, but about different channels.


----------



## Gilitar (Aug 1, 2004)

eatonjb said:


> first the best way to get more capacity is get everyone off MPEG2 to MPEG4, but this takes time , since it requires new hardware.


+1

Expensive, but they need to do it for the long run.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

HD is the future. SD is already becoming history. All channels will eventually make the transition to HD. In the meantime - like in the days when color TV was emerging and later when stereo sound was finding its roots - you are bound to see a mixed bag of TV offerings by all providers, including E*.

I'll take whatever comes, whenever they decide to give it to me. I don't propose nor suggest any channels be removed for the sake of others. In time, I'll have them all. It's the nature of the beast ... especially during transition times like these.

Personally, Voom can come or go, but not at the expense of a channel someone else really enjoys. I've enjoyed many series on Voom channels that have become stale through endless repetition, but someone out there is just now discovering the beauty of _"Journeys of the Heart - Peru"_ and enjoying it immensly... I'd hate to take that away from them. Add to that the potential for other new Voom series of the quality that they have already proven themselves adept at providing.

So the way I see it today, Voom gives me a suite of HD channels that I would not normally get without subscribing to Dish. I see it as a bonus, not an onus. The rest will come when contracts and technologies allow. It sure beats 3 channels, B&W and Mono.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gilitar said:


> Wouldn't you guys like to have FX, USA, SciFi, VH1, Spike, etc...??


Not in place of any channel. We will get them. Perhaps by the time we do, they will have a noticeable HD schedule?


----------



## Deke Rivers (Jan 8, 2007)

Gilitar said:


> I was thinking about E*'s HD capacity crunch and got to wondering about something. Why doesn't E* eliminate some of the junk HD they carry? I mean lets face it... half the Voom channels are a waste. They were nice when HD feeds were hard to come by, but now they just show the same junk over and over again. I say dump the Voom lineup and add more attractive channels. I wonder if there is some sort of requirement for E* to carry these channels? Doesn't E* own Voom anyway?
> 
> So what do you guys think?


one mans garbage is another mans treasure....who to determine what should be dumped? in a perfect world id like to see all the channels i never watch (including the ones you mentioned you WOULD like) go away but lets face it ..someone is watching them and enjoying them


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

So dump full time actual HD for channels that show stretch-o-vision? I mean TNT and TBS probably show more reruns (excepting sports) than even the voom channels, and most of their reruns are stretch-o-vision, so yeah I would dump them for full time new actual HD programming, but until such time there is that, then no.


----------



## RTE (Aug 26, 2007)

Gilitar said:


> Wouldn't you guys like to have FX, USA, SciFi, VH1, Spike, etc...??


For rare occasions, but I prefer any movie channels with no commercials taking up 1/4 of the time. So all the Starz, Encore, HBO, Movie channels, and even showtime and Cinemax channels. then we can get Fox movie and TCM.

I think that is 40 channels! We could take off all sports channels except ESPN channels and those "music?" channels have to go. Commercial free TV, the only way to go.:listenup:


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

ebaltz said:


> So dump full time actual HD for channels that show stretch-o-vision? I mean TNT and TBS probably show more reruns (excepting sports) than even the voom channels, and most of their reruns are stretch-o-vision, so yeah I would dump them for full time new actual HD programming, but until such time there is that, then no.


TNT-HD's stretch-o-vision presentation of_ A Christmas Story_ looked absolutely horrid. I love the movie but couldn't stand to watch past the opening narrative this time.

I can't imagine anyone looking at the crappy way TNT presents their "HD" programming, comparing that to ANY network showing true HD, and then voting to keep TNT-HD.

I sure hope Charlie is starting to evaluate the HD content of these "HD channels" before he invests the bandwidth necessary to carry them.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

Frank TV is HD.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Gilitar said:


> You guys are waaaay too sensitive.


The problem is not one of sensitivity it's the fact this subject has come up so many times that most of us have lost count. Basically it's I like thes channels but don't like these so let us git rid of them.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> They may be junk to you but not to others. Hows about doing away with the junk TBS, NBA, HNL and BTN channels instead?


OK, we get it...you don't like sports...but the 99% of the rest of the male population does.

If they really want to free up some HD bandwidth, I'd say take away all the numerous Alt HD channel feeds for these pay sports pakcages. Like NBA League Pass and NHL Center Court. I mean there's only like 2, 3, maybe 4 games on at any given time, so what's the other 8 channels for?


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

ssmith10pn said:


> Frank TV is HD.


Actually the first couple of episodes were 4:3 stretch-o-vision, but I think they went to full 16:9 HD by episode 3 or so.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> OK, we get it...you don't like sports...but the 99% of the rest of the male population does.
> 
> If they really want to free up some HD bandwidth, I'd say take away all the numerous Alt HD channel feeds for these pay sports pakcages. Like NBA League Pass and NHL Center Court. I mean there's only like 2, 3, maybe 4 games on at any given time, so what's the other 8 channels for?


The other 8 channels take up no bandwidth when they are not showing anything. They are just still in the listings of EPG.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> OK, we get it...you don't like sports...but the 99% of the rest of the male population does.


You shouldn't say what others like and don't like, I do like sports.

But 5 BTN channels, 4 NHL channels, a few NBA channels and handful of ALTs and there are maybe 3 games on all of those channels. What a friggin' waste... they are JUNK! If they want sports let them go to D*.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The NBA and NHL packages are taking up the same space as the RSNs. These are not independent channels with their own bandwidth. They are simply using the same content streams on multiple channel numbers. If the game is going to be shown in one market on their RSN, E* might as well show it to NBA and NHL season ticket viewers.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> You shouldn't say what others like and don't like, I do like sports.
> 
> But 5 BTN channels, 4 NHL channels, a few NBA channels and handful of ALTs and there are maybe 3 games on all of those channels. What a friggin' waste... they are JUNK! If they want sports let them go to D*.





> Originally Posted by HobbyTalk
> They may be junk to you but not to others.


make up your mind..

One could argue that the constant reruns and old content on the VOOM networks is a waste also....like it or not sports packages and channels are the top sellers...and because someone likes sports doesn't mean they should have to go to D*....unless your saying E* is for only sensitive swap meet cruising, treasure hunting, craft making, scrapbook loving, tree hugging, art and nature lovers...?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Actually the first couple of episodes were 4:3 stretch-o-vision, but I think they went to full 16:9 HD by episode 3 or so.


I wish... but no, unfortunately still in stretch-o-vision. Same goes for their other original shows.

Perhaps the worst offender is how they show the Office. They take the letterbox version and stretch that.. so you get what looks like 2.35:1 stretched out on TBSHD for the Office.

Sad... and sad too that they show their "in HD where available" bug when these shows start too... although apparently the HD is actually never available anywhere.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I wish... but no, unfortunately still in stretch-o-vision. Same goes for their other original shows.
> 
> Perhaps the worst offender is how they show the Office. They take the letterbox version and stretch that.. so you get what looks like 2.35:1 stretched out on TBSHD for the Office.
> 
> Sad... and sad too that they show their "in HD where available" bug when these shows start too... although apparently the HD is actually never available anywhere.


The only things I recall seeing in actual HD was the Frank stand up show, the Ellen special and the playoffs, but I dont watch it that often


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

Gilitar said:


> You guys are waaaay too sensitive.


It's not about being sensitive. It's about being realistic. Just because you think they're junk doesn't mean everyone does. They can't get rid of a channel just because _you_ don't like it.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

RTE said:


> ...and those "music?" channels have to go. listenup:


Yeah... if we get rid of all those wasteful music channels that just contain audio we could reclaim a fraction of a single video channel.

Yes I'm being sarcastic. I just have to laugh when someone suggests the audio channels are taking any significant bandwidth.


----------



## RTE (Aug 26, 2007)

TomH said:


> Yes I'm being sarcastic. I just have to laugh when someone suggests the audio channels are taking any significant bandwidth.


I am talking about those with video: CMT, VH1, VH1 classic, Great American Country, Music Television, Music Television 2, Fuse, Rave, International Music Feed, MHD, a total of 10 of which 2 are HD.

The audio channels total 96 or so channels since you know how much bandwidth they take, tell us how much.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The audio channels are spread out over multiple transponders ... filling gaps ... but if they were all in one place, the trade off is about 8 audio channels per 1 SD video channel. There is a maximum of 12 SD channels per transponder ... which works out nice where 96 audio channels would be "one" transponder. One transponder is currently about 6 HD channels (some TPs have only 4 HDs - one TP has 7 HDs).

There are actually over 115 audio channels available via E* subscription. Most of them (including a few you can't subscriber to) are there NOT for the E* customers directly but for the Muzak service that PAYS E* for carriage. Getting 32 "CD" channels in AT100, 64 "Sirius" channels in AT200 and 19 "AUD" mono channels (which takes less room than the stereo channels) in AT250 is a bonus. E* could remove those channels from their packages, but they need to be on the satellite for Muzak customers.

(And before you ask, yes - those 9400 range "PI" channels, religious channels and shopping channels ALSO pay their own way. Besides, the "PI" channels are required by federal law. Can't get away from them!)

Why does "gaining bandwidth" turn to deleting channels other people watch and listen to? We should look away from solutions where channels are no longer available.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> The audio channels are spread out over multiple transponders ... filling gaps ... but if they were all in one place, the trade off is about 8 audio channels per 1 SD video channel. There is a maximum of 12 SD channels per transponder ... which works out nice where 96 audio channels would be "one" transponder. One transponder is currently about 6 HD channels (some TPs have only 4 HDs - one TP has 7 HDs).
> 
> There are actually over 115 audio channels available via E* subscription. Most of them (including a few you can't subscriber to) are there NOT for the E* customers directly but for the Muzak service that PAYS E* for carriage. Getting 32 "CD" channels in AT100, 64 "Sirius" channels in AT200 and 19 "AUD" mono channels (which takes less room than the stereo channels) in AT250 is a bonus. E* could remove those channels from their packages, but they need to be on the satellite for Muzak customers.
> 
> ...


If the audio channels are taking that much then nix them!

You can get the same stuff free on the internet, your local FM or if you like the pay radio they are already broadcasting the same channels!

I had thought that the compressed audio channels took alot less room. If they are really taking an entire transponder then time to go bye bye IMHO.

-JB

P.S. These audio channels are not used my most people and originally were just to "pad" the number of channels so they could claim more channels. Have I listened to them from time to time? Sure but if the tradeoff is room for more "video" which is why I'm with Dish to begin with then I'm all for taking them down... and take down those stupid PPV channels too!


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

jrb531 said:


> If the audio channels are taking that much then nix them!


Your full quote includes the explanation of _how_ they are taking up the equivalent of one transponder. It's the first line:


James Long said:


> The audio channels are spread out over multiple transponders ... filling gaps ...


I think JL is saying that removal of the audio channels wouldn't recover enough capacity to add video channels to any particular TP, and certainly not HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

You have to read what James said very carefully... Firstly, best case scenario might be 1 freed transponder by eliminating the audio channels... not much gained there.

Most importantly, is that eliminating all the audio wouldn't actually get you a free transponder anywhere. When we say things like 12 SD channels per transponder or 6 HD per transponder... that doesn't mean they completely fill all the bandwidth on that transponder.

It is likely we have a few bits left over here and there, that aren't much good for anything but the audio... so they are kind of like freebies taking up bandwidth that otherwise wouldn't be available.

Kind of like how you buy the 8 oz jar of peanut butter but can't always eat every last drop out of it because of what sticks to the sides and the very bottom... and even if you scrape it all out cleanly, that last little bit isn't enough to make a sandwich or anything substantial.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The biggest thing being missed in my post is that E* is under contract to Musak to keep most the audio channels there. They can't turn them off. They can hide them from E* customers, but the feeds have to be on the satellite regardless of E* subscribers.

Perhaps the Sirius channels could be cut ... but that would also likely violate a promotional contract and those channels directly compete against D*. It will be interesting what will happen after the XM/Sirius merger. Will the genres merge and we end up with the same "hosted" music channels on E* and D*?

Another topic for another thread. 
Suffice it to say, removing music channels isn't an option.

BTW: this is post 18k


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> BTW: this is post 18k


:lol: that was good


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Gilitar said:


> You guys are waaaay too sensitive.


Your suggestion would work if you were Hugo Chavez and you owned E*.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> Your suggestion would work if you were Hugo Chavez and you owned E*.


with all the secrecy and lack of info to the people, i thought he did:lol:

i know i know....cheap shot...i'm only kidding...couldn't resist. Take a deep breath James


----------

