# DISH is sucking the air out of DirecTV



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly? 
Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


You're half right...about the sucking part.


----------



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


Who?............................................CARES!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Competition is always good. I wouldn't be too worried about how DIRECTV is doing. I have a feeling that they will stay on top.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


 As far as I'm concerned 1080p is just a gimmick.:nono2: What stations are actually broadcasting in 1080p?  If it's PPV you'd be better off renting a BLU Ray movie.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Well, they could always put a bunch more over-compressed channels on each transponder to boost their "HD" numbers, since there is no FCC-mandated definition of the term, nor minimum required bandwidth. It'll look like crap, but they can do it.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Just another sign they've gotta be compressing the hell out of their signal too.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> Well, they could always put a bunch more over-compressed channels on each transponder to boost their "HD" numbers, since there is no FCC-mandated definition of the term, nor minimum required bandwidth. It'll look like crap, but they can do it.


 But then wouldn't they just be competing with Comcast for worst HD picture??


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

didnt they lose a satellite....what would they say they have like 200 if that worked as well.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

So?

DirecTV's announcement this week was much more impressive.

Dish is still playing catch up with HD channels and DirecTV already has capacity for 150 HD channels, tons of HD locals. Plus DirecTV will have more capacity when D12 launches next year.

As for 1080p, it appears to be limited to movies offered via Dish's VOD and PPV. So what, DirecTV has already announced that they will offer this before the end of the year.


----------



## venisenvy (Nov 1, 2007)

I just not sure where they are getting all this extra space from. But competition is awlays really really good


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


Reminds me of the old joke, where the kid runs into the bar yelling Cowboy, cowboy, come quick.. Someone let all the air out of your Horse. Anyone who responded was shown to be a drugstore cowboy


----------



## VegasDen (Jul 12, 2007)

They can add all they want....but until Dish added Las Vegas locals in HD they won't get a second look from me.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

Uncompressed over the air signals aren't even 1080p, how does DISH do it? 


COMPRESSION.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

idigg said:


> Uncompressed over the air signals aren't even 1080p, how does DISH do it?
> 
> COMPRESSION.





evan_s said:


> Just another sign they've gotta be compressing the hell out of their signal too.





LameLefty said:


> Well, they could always put a bunch more over-compressed channels on each transponder to boost their "HD" numbers, since there is no FCC-mandated definition of the term, nor minimum required bandwidth. It'll look like crap, but they can do it.


This is the answer that's always given, compression compression.....They've been adding channels very frequently and I cant see how they can add as many channels as they have in the past few months by just compressing. I doubt DirecTV could add 50 HD channels on their capacity (without D11) as well as 1080p now by simply compressing....


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

Steve Robertson said:


> Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn


Exactly....


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From the posts I've seen people are very happy with the new MPEG4 versions of the old MPEG2 channels for PQ. Let's see what the E* folks have to say tomorrow when E*'s add all their new HD channels about PQ.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

Either way you go. Competition is good for the consumer. I say to Dish. Add them. Light it up. Maybe D* will push more out faster. I am a D* sub. I am not going anywhere, but the more HD the happier we all will be.


----------



## Scott in FL (Mar 18, 2008)

idigg said:


> Uncompressed over the air signals aren't even 1080p...


OTA signals are compressed.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

As a DirecTV customer I'm definitely not going anywhere either. It just frustrates me that we've been waiting months upon months and havent seen a _single _new HD channel and these guys are handing em out like candies. We get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get seventeen new HD channels tomorrow.....


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

bruinfever said:


> It just frustrates me that we've been waiting months upon months and havent seen a single new HD channel and these guys are handing em out like candies.


This is like saying on December 24th that there will never be Christmas.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Competition is a good thing. I'm very happy with DirecTV, even though they don't now (nor may ever) have _every_ HD channel I personally desire.

Remember where we were a year ago today...


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> As a DirecTV customer I'm definitely not going anywhere either. It just frustrates me that we've been waiting months upon months and havent seen a _single _new HD channel and these guys are handing em out like candies. We get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get seventeen new HD channels tomorrow.....


There mostly handing out channels that we've had for months.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

They've got to bump up the stock before it takes a beating when TiVo rakes them over the coals in court.


----------



## reggie (Jul 9, 2007)

Normally I say competition is good. But this is really competition to see who can say they have the best, not necessarily have the best. I would argue the competition for number will only degrade the actual quality. 

The masses won't even care- look how many have their HD running through coax. I've seen it, told the person (not an idiot) and they didn't care because the picture was already stretched.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Funny thread ... like a bunch of kid trumping own chest and cry 'my father will beat your father - he is fatter and have biggger fists' -


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

reggie said:


> Normally I say competition is good. But this is really competition to see who can say they have the best, not necessarily have the best. I would argue the competition for number will only degrade the actual quality.


I always share that concern. I prefer quality over quantity. However, given current capacity, I think DirecTV, at least, has plenty of room to handle their HD needs without compromising picture quality.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Dish will never have the NFL. May never have MLB and will never equal DirecTV's sports packages. DirecTV is still the leader. They don't count all the sports when they count up the channels.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Dish will never have the NFL. May never have MLB and will never equal DirecTV's sports packages. DirecTV is still the leader. They don't count all the sports when they count up the channels.


As an out-of-market HD sports fan, no other provider comes close to DirecTV -- even given that I personally could actually make do without Sunday Ticket.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Funny thread ... like a bunch of kid trumping own chest and cry 'my father will beat your father - he is fatter and have biggger fists' -


personally I hope that Dish is able to give all of thier subscribers all the HD that they are able to eat, and of course Directv will continue to provide Excellent HD programming to us.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

bwaldron said:


> As an out-of-market HD sports fan, no other provider comes close to DirecTV -- even given that I personally could actually make do without Sunday Ticket.


I concur, bwaldron. I am already doing without Sunday Ticket. But they'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my DirecTV remote if they want me to give up my MLB EI, ESPN GamePlan and ESPN FullCourt.

On another topic: Any way I could convince you to get off those Bosox and start following a real team? Can you say "pinstripes?"


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Meh...:shrugh:

I gotta give them props for taking desperate actions in desperate times.

While I really do like the idea of an HD only package, I'd be missing out a few shows here and there that arn't in HD yet, so, no thanks.

1080p some nice spin. To use it you'll need to have a 1080p set (duh), an internet connection that will have to be fast enough and a high enough bandwidth cap as to be usable. Where's the DirecTv DOD bashers now? Dining on some crow? Those same limitations apply to both camps.


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


And in 2 weeks we get 35 new HD channels. With D11 we have announced capacity for 20 more after that to reach 150 - the same as Dish is touting.

My understanding is that Dish counts part time regional sports channels and 12 or 14 VOD on demand channels in their totals. Directv only counts full time broadcast channels.

The 1080p offering is on VOD or PPV from what I gather from the Dish announcement. So you will pay for each of those 1080p movies. I am sure Directv will start out with their 1080p offering on VOD/PPV as well.

It would be interesting to see if there is someone who has both Dish and DirecTV and can do a side by side (quick back and forth) comparison to chime in about the PQ on all the HD channels.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

$6.99 to rent a 24 hour movie restricted to HDMI output doesn't cut it for me. Keep your 1080p and I'll wait for it to show up in 1080i on HBO/MAX/SHO/Starz. But thanks for trying !


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

scrybigtv said:


> I concur, bwaldron. I am already doing without Sunday Ticket. But they'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my DirecTV remote if they want me to give up my MLB EI, ESPN GamePlan and ESPN FullCourt.
> 
> On another topic: Any way I could convince you to get off those Bosox and start following a real team? Can you say "pinstripes?"


I think more in terms of Arena Football, and perhaps the word should be Blaze.


----------



## mauijiminar (Oct 11, 2007)

dhhaines said:


> As far as I'm concerned 1080p is just a gimmick.:nono2: What stations are actually broadcasting in 1080p?  If it's PPV you'd be better off renting a BLU Ray movie.


Yes I agree and yes it would take forever to download a 1080p VOD


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

scrybigtv said:


> I concur, bwaldron. I am already doing without Sunday Ticket. But they'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my DirecTV remote if they want me to give up my MLB EI, ESPN GamePlan and ESPN FullCourt.
> 
> On another topic: Any way I could convince you to get off those Bosox and start following a real team? Can you say "pinstripes?"


Well, sure, I can _say_ it...


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

If you look at it from a if I have Premier or Americas Everything Package I think you will see the actual channel for channel list still heavily favors D*. RSN’s part time or full outside of your area, PPV, VOD, DNS don’t count them as you can not at any moment turn to that channel and watch it, if you do that the channel counts fall somewhere in the range of 75 D*to 60 E* after tomorrow.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Competition is always good. I wouldn't be too worried about how DIRECTV is doing. I have a feeling that they will stay on top.


Agreed.

Especially since Dish has always used "fuzzy math" to justify their reduced and overly compressed HD channels and contents.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

So if they add all these channels tomorrow (8/1), which ones get yanked latter that day or on 8/2?

They've already pulled that stunt once with Voom, what channel group is next?


----------



## mlb (Jul 31, 2008)

bruinfever said:


> Dish announced today that they will have 150 HD channels by the end of the year as well as 1080p starting TOMORROW, as well as 17 new National HD channels TOMORROW. Talk about killing the momentum...How could they do this on-the-fly?
> Today we get MPEG2 to MPEG4 conversions and they get all that??:nono: :nono2:


Well, considering I just dropped Dish this week and came to D* I can give you some info.

1. 1080p is not being broadcast, it is being downloaded to their HD-DVRs. After downloading you can watch the show by ordering it through a special PPV channel. Therefore, they are counting those as HD channels now (total BS).

2. The 17 HD channels were announced a few weeks back. Where have you been?

3. They are compressing their channels, running nothing in full 1080i (D*=1920x1080, E*=1440x1080).

They don't have room for 36 new HD channels from everything I've seen, so they will have to move things around and compress even more. They will go from 6/7 HD channels per transponder to even higher. As others have stated, they don't have the RSNs as full time HD channels... the list goes on and on.

Seriously, I came over to D* because it is the best provider for HD out right now. I don't care what E* does, there is no way they pass D* over the next year. Dish's new satellites are replacing old, worn-out equipment right now, thus the amount of new HD channels they can launch with those craft will be limited.

The grass is not always greener, my friend.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

mlb said:


> They don't have room for 36 new HD channels from everything I've seen, so they will have to move things around and compress even more.


Echostar XI will go live with HD channels in mid-late September. PLENTY of room for more HD for Dish subscribers.

Remember folks: this is a marathon, not a sprint. In 12-18 months, practically available HD channel will be on both systems. Winning for a week/month here or there is winning a small battle. This is a "war" -- and it will be loooooooooonnng. 

And it's just begun!


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

mlb said:


> The grass is not always greener, my friend.


Indeed...and wisdom that is not limited to choice of a TV provider.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

scrybigtv said:


> I concur, bwaldron. I am already doing without Sunday Ticket. But they'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my DirecTV remote if they want me to give up my MLB EI, ESPN GamePlan and ESPN FullCourt.
> 
> On another topic: Any way I could convince you to get off those Bosox and start following a real team? Can you say "pinstripes?"


Pinstripes (I said it) (Henry Blake?) snakes, and Bears (Young ones) and Birds (both red and yellow) and even fish.


----------



## mlb (Jul 31, 2008)

syphix said:


> Echostar XI will go live with HD channels in mid-late September. PLENTY of room for more HD for Dish subscribers.
> 
> Remember folks: this is a marathon, not a sprint. In 12-18 months, practically available HD channel will be on both systems. Winning for a week/month here or there is winning a small battle. This is a "war" -- and it will be loooooooooonnng.
> 
> And it's just begun!


E11 is a replacement for their satellite at 110WL. Although there are some nominal gains thanks to new spot beams (taking things off of conus), they still are limited because they already have a very full satellite at that position.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

mlb said:


> E11 is a replacement for their satellite at 110WL. Although there are some nominal gains thanks to new spot beams (taking things off of conus), they still are limited because they already have a very full satellite at that position.


Ahh.....thanks for the corrections. I see a lot of Dish subber's claiming E11 will expand their HD capacity to match DirecTV. This isn't quite true, huh?


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> You're half right...about the sucking part.


Bwa ha ha! :lol: :lol:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

man_rob said:


> There mostly handing out channels that we've had for months.


Pretty much.


----------



## mlb (Jul 31, 2008)

syphix said:


> Ahh.....thanks for the corrections. I see a lot of Dish subber's claiming E11 will expand their HD capacity to match DirecTV. This isn't quite true, huh?


Like I said, it may add some space thanks to being able to move some locals off of CONUS, but the gain will not be that significant. Their next satellite (CEIL-2) is a replacement at 129 that could give some significant gains if Canadian companies don't purchase space on it (it is officially a Canadian location, hence Canadian companies have 1st dibs), but that is too early to tell. It also isn't scheduled to launch until November hence won't come online until 2009 at the earliest.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Numbers and fuzzy math aside, Dish does have a number of HD channels which Directv does not yet carry (and I don't mean just World Fishing Network or whatever it's called). I'd rather see some of them than some of the ones we already have (particularly those which have little or no HD content, but surely there are others who would complain if some of these were to go away. As has been already stated, competition is good for all of us and we should start seeing the results very soon.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

As has been stated before multiple times in this thread already, competition is good. Bring it on! Pick a service that you're happy with and stick with it. We're in the middle of an HD war right now and there's gonna be lots of changes to all services (sat, cable, and fiber). Thumbing your nose at the now (perceived) laggard isn't good form, especially considering that leadership changes happen often in most industries.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

curt8403 said:


> Pinstripes (I said it) (Henry Blake?) snakes, and Bears (Young ones) and Birds (both red and yellow) and even fish.


Great fun to watch, curt; but remember, we're talking "real" teams.
:lol:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

5 years from now when every provider has every possible HD channel, what will we sword fight about?


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> As far as I'm concerned 1080p is just a gimmick.:nono2: What stations are actually broadcasting in 1080p?  If it's PPV you'd be better off renting a BLU Ray movie.


No one is broadcasting in 1080p now or for well into the future if ever, They are only going for the latest buzzword mentality


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now when every provider has every possible HD channel, what will we sword fight about?


If E* and D* haven't merged by then, it will probably be about who has the best VOD content based on their "exclusive" contracts with various content owners.


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

Im guessing in a month Dish will Announce "DISH TO OFFER 200 HD CHANNELS", 
Theyll add 50HD VOD channels, and count game only HDs.
Not even real SAT channels, VOD channels.

It use to frustrate the hell out of me that Directv had 9 HD channels and Dish had 40, Well Directv Kicked it in gear with The Space ways and D10/11 and they really are serious about HD now.
Glad to see Directv moving ahead with this technology.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm glad that Dish subscribers will be getting more HD. I have a brother in law who just went with Dish, this will benefit him As so many have said, competition is good, it benefits everyone.

I'm happy with DirecTV for a number of reasons, the quantity (and selection) of HD is one of them.

Carl


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

scrybigtv said:


> Great fun to watch, curt; but remember, we're talking "real" teams.
> :lol:


Arizona , Baltimore Toronto, Miami etc/


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

easier to add new channels when you have less to start with


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

syphix said:


> Ahh.....thanks for the corrections. I see a lot of Dish subber's claiming E11 will expand their HD capacity to match DirecTV. This isn't quite true, huh?


They are just changing their counting criteria to match Direct in number only. Since they cannot add actual channels to match, they decided to count another group of channels that Direct does not count, VOD. They already count their part time RSNs, now they are adding VOD to that list as well. If Direct did the same, they would be able to claim over 200 HD channels.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

one movie per vod "channel" :lol:


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Hey, if Comcast can count VOD, Dish should be able to do it also.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

maybe they're going to add 1,000 hd channels by the end of the year.:eek2: 
minus 500 while we sleep


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

bobnielsen said:


> Hey, if Comcast can count VOD, Dish should be able to do it also.


I have no problem with everyone counting VOD as long as they ALL do it. Consistency is the key.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

DodgerKing said:


> I have no problem with everyone counting VOD as long as they ALL do it. Consistency is the key.


The numbers are meaningless if the content you desire is not available. For me, it's MLB EI, network TV and movie channels. I've got plenty of that through my current provider and that is where I am staying.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> If it's PPV you'd be better off renting a BLU Ray movie.


And be able to keep it for more than 24 hours.


----------



## jwjensen356 (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm a Dish subscriber. The heading on this thread caught my eye so I decided to look in. 
Back in January, February 2008 the Dish people were moaning about the D* HD channels being increased and E* was losing the HD race. Times change. As the quote below says, it's best to just hang in there.



tcusta00 said:


> As has been stated before multiple times in this thread already, competition is good. Bring it on! Pick a service that you're happy with and stick with it. We're in the middle of an HD war right now and there's gonna be lots of changes to all services (sat, cable, and fiber). Thumbing your nose at the now (perceived) laggard isn't good form, especially considering that leadership changes happen often in most industries.


----------



## rustynails (Apr 24, 2008)

say-what said:


> So?
> 
> DirecTV's announcement this week was much more impressive.
> 
> ...


Well D is playing catch up with E's HDDVR's. I agree there will probably be limited use of 1080p since broadcast channels don't even use it yet.


----------



## George Lewis (Jul 23, 2008)

I'm a long time Sunday Ticket subscriber... I have no intention of moving to Dish because of this alone...

I used to have Dish as well, but only for their German programming. I wish DirecTV would carry some German language programming - maybe someday...


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

VegasDen said:


> They can add all they want....but until Dish added Las Vegas locals in HD they won't get a second look from me.


DirecTV only has 1 HD local!?!


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

I will let the quality of the HD channels that Dish added suck the air out of Dish


----------



## BlueSnake (Oct 6, 2006)

I will be completely happy when Directv gets my HD LILs turned on. I hope it's not too much longer, it seems like we have been waiting forever. Unfortunately we're not even on the current list.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Just remember that 1080p is 24 frames per second, 1080i is 60 fields (half frames) per second. So effectively you are reducing frames from 30 to 24 for a theoretical 20 percent bandwidth reduction. However, to go from 24 to 60, they repeat one field three times and the other two. Due to removal of duplicate fields, there probably won't actually be much if any bandwidth reduction, but certainly 1080p should not take more bits than 1080i. In effect it is just "mine is bigger then yours" marketing.

This would only be useful for movie (film based) content. I would fear 1080i content (such as live video or sports), converted to 1080p24 and then have the local receiver to interlace it back to 1080i60. The likeyhood of severe judder just frightens me.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

DodgerKing said:


> They are just changing their counting criteria to match Direct in number only. Since they cannot add actual channels to match, they decided to count another group of channels that Direct does not count, VOD. They already count their part time RSNs, now they are adding VOD to that list as well. If Direct did the same, they would be able to claim over 200 HD channels.


Let me also add that Dish will be adding true HD channels tomorrow, not just changing what they count in order to increase the count number. These additions are good news for both Direct and Dish subs.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Competition is always good. I wouldn't be too worried about how DIRECTV is doing. I have a feeling that they will stay on top.


Exactly. I just wish that DISH was a little less talk and little more action. That might nudge DirecTV to give me some of the HD channels I'm missing sooner than later.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

jwjensen356 said:


> I'm a Dish subscriber. The heading on this thread caught my eye so I decided to look in.
> Back in January, February 2008 the Dish people were moaning about the D* HD channels being increased and E* was losing the HD race. Times change. As the quote below says, it's best to just hang in there.


Well while I congratulate Dish subscribers on the news you should know that alot of DirecTV subscribers use to be Dish subscribers.So while Dish talks the talk it's the Dish walking the walk that has always bothered me.Well that and being charged all the"because we can fees" that Dish charges,but that's another thread.


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> Hey, if Comcast can count VOD, Dish should be able to do it also.


I think there is a pretty big difference(at least in my understanding) because with comcast you get VOD (video on demand) while with Directv and Dish you get VODAB (video on demand after buffering) --- except for the "Movies Now" or whatever the silly name they came up with for the preloaded movies.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

V'ger;1709666 said:


> Just remember that 1080p is 24 frames per second, 1080i is 60 fields (half frames) per second. So effectively you are reducing frames from 30 to 24 for a theoretical 20 percent bandwidth reduction. However, to go from 24 to 60, they repeat one field three times and the other two. Due to removal of duplicate fields, there probably won't actually be much if any bandwidth reduction, but certainly 1080p should not take more bits than 1080i. In effect it is just "mine is bigger then yours" marketing.
> 
> This would only be useful for movie (film based) content. I would fear 1080i content (such as live video or sports), converted to 1080p24 and then have the local receiver to interlace it back to 1080i60. The likeyhood of severe judder just frightens me.


Ah, I dont think that local reciever is going to be putting anything thats coming in at 1080p back to 1080i... i think well see a software update to allow it to oputput 1080p...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jacksonm30354 said:


> And in 2 weeks we get 35 new HD channels.


Is there a list? DirecTV is currently claiming 95 (including "The 101", 11 RSNs, 8 Distant Networks and 15 PPVs). If adding 35 new HD channels is actually adding 35 channels that are not available, and not just starting to count more of the already available channels (such as locals and additional RSNs) great. But if most of their adds are just counting what they have what is the benefit?

What new channels are actually coming?



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Especially since Dish has always used "fuzzy math" to justify their reduced and overly compressed HD channels and contents.


Who was the first carrier to inflate counts (by counting audio channels) and use "HD Light" compression?

Not DISH. 



msmith198025 said:


> man_rob said:
> 
> 
> > There mostly handing out channels that we've had for months.
> ...


DirecTV's next wave will include channels DISH has had for months.

It is just a friendly game of Ping Pong.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)




----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep ... 17 channels added today, only 6 were HD on DirecTV before DISH.
That goes along with the 5 channels added first to DISH earlier this year (not countin WFN - World Fishing Network).

16 channels of HD on DISH and not on DirecTV (not including WFN) ... 12 channels of HD on DirecTV and not on DISH (including MTV/VH1/CMT).

If all goes well DirecTV will add the 16 channels as part of their next 35 and DISH will add the 12 as part of their next wave. At least comparison gives a clue of what real channels are out there to be added.


----------



## mlb (Jul 31, 2008)

James Long said:


> If all goes well DirecTV will add the 16 channels as part of their next 35 and DISH will add the 12 as part of their next wave. At least comparison gives a clue of what real channels are out there to be added.




And Dish can add 14 1080p channels as well... :lol: :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Yep ... 17 channels added today, only 6 were HD on DirecTV before DISH.
> That goes along with the 5 channels added first to DISH earlier this year (not countin WFN - World Fishing Network).
> 
> 16 channels of HD on DISH and not on DirecTV (not including WFN) ... 12 channels of HD on DirecTV and not on DISH (including MTV/VH1/CMT).
> ...


Thanks for the info...it does help to understand things.

Of course...there is also the difference as to the quality and bitrate compression done by each...whereby DirecTV has much less "cramming" of the signal going on than Dish, leading to a better viewing experience. We'll have to see how all that plays out as well.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

By the end of the year we'll all need more HD content providers..


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

So who's got the time (and insanity) to calculate how much total bandwidth each has? :grin:


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

James Long said:


> Is there a list? DirecTV is currently claiming 95 (including "The 101", 11 RSNs, 8 Distant Networks and 15 PPVs). If adding 35 new HD channels is actually adding 35 channels that are not available, and not just starting to count more of the already available channels (such as locals and additional RSNs) great. But if most of their adds are just counting what they have what is the benefit?
> 
> What new channels are actually coming?
> 
> ...


Now, Dish has started using HD Lite, compressing the hell out of their HD, while DirecTV has been moving in the opposite direction. Dish is including part-time channels in their count. Yes DirecTV counts RSNs, but at least they are on 24/7.

Apples for Apples DirecTV _still _has more channels. In two weeks the gap will widen even more.


----------



## BrianB (Jul 13, 2003)

apexmi said:


> No one is broadcasting in 1080p now or for well into the future if ever, They are only going for the latest buzzword mentality


I see a lot of people trying to blow off the 1080p announce as something that's not needed or even wanted at this point, but how many of those people have Blu-Ray players at home? It doesn't matter if no providers broadcast this format yet - it's about the providers allowing downloads in formats that compete with Blu-Ray.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Dish Network is _also_ counting 14 VOD channels.

DirecTV does not.

Folks, it's all in the marketing...


----------



## Paul A (Jul 12, 2007)

houskamp said:


> So who's got the time (and insanity) to calculate how much total bandwidth each has? :grin:


Sixto will do it in his spare time


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

MikeW said:


> $6.99 to rent a 24 hour movie restricted to HDMI output doesn't cut it for me. Keep your 1080p and I'll wait for it to show up in 1080i on HBO/MAX/SHO/Starz. But thanks for trying !


It's worse than that... based on this screenshot from satguys, looks like the rental period is *4 *hours: WTF???










Download something like an extended LOTR, and you may not even have time to take a phone call. :eek2:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

BrianB said:


> I see a lot of people trying to blow off the 1080p announce as something that's not needed or even wanted at this point, but how many of those people have Blu-Ray players at home? It doesn't matter if no providers broadcast this format yet - it's about the providers allowing downloads in formats that compete with Blu-Ray.


Neither provider is going to provide something equivalent to Blu-Ray unless they think well outside the box. DirecTV is closer by being able to send Movies Now over a longer period of time (instead of compressing to save bandwidth, have the movie run longer for download to disk). This would cause other problems though, because it would consume more hard drive space.

Dish can provide something 1080p, but it will be compressed beyond belief. They already can't provide pristine quality on their 1080i feeds. They have no new source of bandwidth, so anything they do means stealing more bits from other channels which are already anemic.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DarinC said:


> It's worse than that... based on this screenshot from satguys, looks like the rental period is *4 *hours: WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Either that or the "2" in front of the "4" on rental period got dropped somehow. Not that there has ever been a typo on anything that DirecTV has ever published.


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

George Lewis said:


> I'm a long time Sunday Ticket subscriber... I have no intention of moving to Dish because of this alone...
> 
> I used to have Dish as well, but only for their German programming. I wish DirecTV would carry some German language programming - maybe someday...


Ditto, and as others have said, competition and choices are good.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

syphix said:


> Dish Network is _also_ counting 14 VOD channels.
> 
> DirecTV does not.
> 
> Folks, it's all in the marketing...


Is the Dish marketing team from the same firm as Comcast?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BrianB said:


> I see a lot of people trying to blow off the 1080p announce as something that's not needed or even wanted at this point, but how many of those people have Blu-Ray players at home? It doesn't matter if no providers broadcast this format yet - it's about the providers allowing downloads in formats that compete with Blu-Ray.


The amount of data sent over the internet will only get better over time...the Blu ray folks are well aware that their time as the "leader" will be shortlived. The people that made music CDs made the same claims about digitized music. The companies that invested money in Blu ray have every right to worry.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

DarinC said:


> It's worse than that... based on this screenshot from satguys, looks like the rental period is *4 *hours: WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


$7! WTF? They can keep their 1080p VOD.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

BrianB said:


> I see a lot of people trying to blow off the 1080p announce as something that's not needed or even wanted at this point, but how many of those people have Blu-Ray players at home?


Don't fall into the trap of believing that the difference in picture quality between BR and broadcast is due to progressive vs. interlaced. The difference is due mostly to the amount of bandwidth available, and also the number or re-encodes the video goes through. 1080p via DirecTV or Dish is not going to be the same quality as BR. At least not any time in the near future.

That's not to say there aren't advantages to broadcasting 1080p. There are, particularly for film based content. But it won't equate to any significant improvement in viewing experience UNLESS the change to 1080p is also accompanied with an increase in the amount of bandwidth they throw at it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> Don't fall into the trap of believing that the difference in picture quality between BR and broadcast is due to progressive vs. interlaced. The difference is due mostly to the amount of bandwidth available, and also the number or re-encodes the video goes through.


Agree.


houskamp said:


> By the end of the year we'll all need more HD content providers..


I've been saying the same thing now for over a year.

Filling up bandwidth only makes sense to DirecTV is there is an ROI behind it (return on investment), and to its customers if there is a perceived viewing benefit. If that were not the case, you would have seen them throw up the Voom stuff ages ago.

The next 6 months, in particular, will include the frantic last-minute rush of a number of content providers to "catch up" and join the digital broadcasting age, and also to create, update, and leverage original content into some form that the public actually wants to see.

In the end, its all about content - yes in HD, or course.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

braven said:


> $7! WTF? They can keep their 1080p VOD.


 And for a WHOLE 4 hours!!! What a major rip off!! :nono2: :nono2:

I won't even get a PPV for 24hrs... 4 is outrageous


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

DarinC said:


> 1080p via DirecTV or Dish is not going to be the same quality as BR.


I'm somewhat amazed at statements like this.

For DirecTV, it's entirely speculation as there have been no "in-the-wild" tests.

For DISH I would imagine that someone might already be (or might have just finished), downloading a 1080p movie. Based on some rough calculations (free space on the DVR drive before and after download) you'd get a reasonable idea of how "compressed" the data files actually are. Someone with the same movie on Blu-Ray, with a Blu-Ray reader on a PC, could "rip" using any of a number of available tools and end up with a roughly "equivalent" set of data files on their hard drive.

If the size of the files is roughly the same, one could conclude that the 'On-Demand' version is a faithful reproduction of the 1080p/24 source provided to DISH.

Remember - we're not talking satellite broadcast here - we're talking a digital stream over the internet - not subject to the same compression tactics and re-encoding issues.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

dbmaven said:


> I'm somewhat amazed at statements like this. ... Remember - we're not talking satellite broadcast here - we're talking a digital stream over the internet - not subject to the same compression tactics and re-encoding issues.


Ok, I'll amend my statement:

"I would be _extremely_ surprised if 1080p via DirecTV or Dish were the same as BR, especially considering they haven't warned their customers that frequently downloading ~40GB files would fill up their DVRs very fast, and maybe even get them dropped by their ISPs."

Is that better?


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

DarinC said:


> Is that better?


Yep ! 

Of course, you can add a 1TB external SATA drive to take care of the space issue...
:grin:

As far as the ISP situation - well, unfortunately, that's dependent on where you live and what options you have available. With my OptimumOnline Boost service, it's not an issue - but I admit I am lucky in that regard. Comcast subs are hosed....


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Bottom line is, it really doesn't make sense for them to try to deliver the SAME quality as BR. Much of the market won't even know the difference, and those that do probably don't expect that quality out of broadcast, or even want that much HD space and download time allocated to it. Personally, if it's content that I care enough about that I'll get that anal about the PQ being as good as it can be, I'm also going to want the better audio codecs (and there's no indication the HR can handle lossless audio). We want the quality as good as reasonably possible, but there is a point where it's just not practical (yet) to transmit that much data.

For this to be a practical endeavor on their part, it needs to be attractive to a fair amount of customers. It would be a big deal for them just to be able to SERVE that much data via the internet, not to mention having to worry about whether their customers can reliably receive it quickly enough, and without risking getting into trouble with their ISP. They have to provide a product that is practical for the vast majority of their subs. Downloading 40GB files isn't it, and therefore they aren't going to quite match BR quality. But kudos to them if they can keep it close enough to fool most people.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

dbmaven said:


> Yep !
> 
> Of course, you can add a 1TB external SATA drive to take care of the space issue...
> :grin:
> ...


i have comcast and that's never been an issue for me. in my area anyway. i have 10mbps down and 2mps up. i at least dl 30 to 40 gb a day. yes i'm a freak!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DarinC said:


> It's worse than that... based on this screenshot from satguys, looks like the rental period is *4 *hours: WTF???


The press release had a lower price ... perhaps DISH forgot to set up the VOD correctly?

Normally VODs are 24 hour rentals on DISH. Ooops!


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

I understand that they are legitimate channels but personally I can't stand the fact that PPV channels get added in to the numbers is ridiculous. The added-value of those channels is almost nothing. Who would rather have an extra 5 PPV channels rather than one channel like Travel Channel HD?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

bruinfever said:


> I understand that they are legitimate channels but personally I can't stand the fact that PPV channels get added in to the numbers is ridiculous. The added-value of those channels is almost nothing. Who would rather have an extra 5 PPV channels rather than one channel like Travel Channel HD?


Not I. Too me Travel HD by itself is much more valuable than all of the PPV's combined. Of course the prividers themselves would disagree as PPV's are money making and the Travel Channel costs them money.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> Not I. Too me Travel HD by itself is much more valuable than all of the PPV's combined. Of course the prividers themselves would disagree as PPV's are money making and the Travel Channel costs them money.


Not to mention adding PPV HD channels requires almost zero effort on the part of the SAT companies. Having carriage agreements and national HD channels takes more effort and provides much more value to subscribers. Especially with more and more HD movies coming to VOD and ethernet connection becoming more mainstream, the need for so many PPV broadcast channels will eventually diminish IMHO. They can still make the proft from PPV and eventually can use more of that bandwidth for national channels...:sure:


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

On the thread subject, I am afraid Directv is about to take a hit. I heard a radio commercial this morning where Dish advertised that they have the only 100% HD package available.

I think I can understand what they are saying

BUT

the average consumer is likely to hear this and say " wow, that means Directv is not 100 percent HD" and assume that the Dish HD is in some way superior to Directv HD. 

This probably won't affect the 10th percentile HD-o-phile who visits here, but it may impact the other 90 percent of people.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gotta get some bleeding edge or insider reports to see if 100% HD is really absolutely no SD channels. There is at least one DISH customer who is upset with the thought that a single SD channel might be provided along with the "100% HD" package. Even if that SD channel is delivered for free and isn't part of the package.

DISH has had a "100% HD" package since last year ... they had one two years ago as well but it was not marketed strongly and faded away. Being able to buy a large number of HD channels without buying a base SD package is a common request. Now is probably a good time to promote such a package ... especially in levels similar to the SD packages.

DISH's TurboHD Bronze is now a price leader - HD for $24.95 per month ($29.99 w/locals). We've seen HD ads with a "packages starting at" price before ... but those packages were not HD (without an additional fee). Now a company is honestly offering 24+ channels of HD for $24.99.

That is a good thing.

I don't know if DirecTV will try to match that or not ... they really have not gone after the "low price" market. DISH has other packages coming that will be even cheaper (for example, a locals only SD/HD package). Just different ways of approaching the problem of how to get customers to give you enough money to stay in business and grow.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> On the thread subject, I am afraid Directv is about to take a hit. I heard a radio commercial this morning where Dish advertised that they have the only 100% HD package available.
> 
> I think I can understand what they are saying
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be to worried about it... I have a feeling we are going to see a massive marketing campaign in mid to late august, maybe even starting during the Olympics, promoting Directv and all the HD channels they have, including the ones they will be turning on in 2 weeks, and I think when they flash their 130+ channels in HD, more than anyone else, it will have an impact just as much as Dishes new campaign, and probably will only lead to more people being only half confused... They will think Sat is where HD is at... but will need to research which one to choose because they both seem to have so much... ( I also suspect we may see a few more things get fired up, like a lot more HD VOD channels, and maybe some PBS VOD in the next week or two)


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

It wouldn't surprise me that once DirecTV gets things settled down that they do a little reorganizing of the programming packages.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I turned on Channel 101, and sudden get this loud sucking sound.......


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Are you sure it wasn't 597?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Let me see if I have this correct:

This thread has turned into a discussion of who's got the biggest _thang_, Dish or DirecTV?

Or maybe who the public believes has the biggest _thang_?

Right?


----------



## Azalo (Oct 24, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> On the thread subject, I am afraid Directv is about to take a hit. I heard a radio commercial this morning where Dish advertised that they have the only 100% HD package available.


Why would that concern you, if D* starts losing customers because of this that will be a good thing, they will be forced to lower prices and offer more packages and maybe even an HD only package. I pay 29.99 for family package, its another 10 for HD access and I would much rather pay 24.99 for the channels offered in the Bronze package, and for the same price I am paying D* I could get their Silver or Gold package. Unless D* changes their pricing structure I am definitely switching in January when my contract expires.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> Let me see if I have this correct:
> 
> This thread has turned into a discussion of who's got the biggest _thang_, Dish or DirecTV?
> 
> ...


Pretty much, except some posters seem to have DirecTV's _thang_ confused with their own.

What's especially funny is that many of us ardent DirecTV subscribers who are ready to throw ourselves off a building because Dish is actually running a decent ad campaign will be back to calling Dish subscribers complete losers in a month when we have two more HD channels than they do.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't understand why people think Dish offerings are that great. The Gold Package is $39.95 plus $5.00 for locals = $44.95. The Choice Package from DirecTv is $54.95 (with HD and locals ) plus you get SD channels that aren't in HD yet. I install Dish but DirecTv looks like a better deal for me.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BNUMM said:


> I don't understand why people think Dish offerings are that great. The Gold Package is $39.95 plus $5.00 for locals = $44.95. The Choice Package from DirecTv is $54.95 (with HD and locals ) plus you get SD channels that aren't in HD yet. I install Dish but DirecTv looks like a better deal for me.


Umm the Choice package is $52.99 and then there's a $9.99 HD Access Fee. I haven't done a comparison between the two...but you should start with accurate numbers if you're going to do one.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Azalo said:


> Why would that concern you, if D* starts losing customers because of this that will be a good thing, they will be forced to lower prices and offer more packages and maybe even an HD only package.


You never want a supplier you deal with to lose customers. You would like to have them think there is competition that drives them to better and less expensive services but actually losing customers is not a good thing for any business or for its customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Funny you should ask --- as just posted in a DISH forum counting thread ... # of HDs in bold:

AT100 + BronzeHD $47.99 / TurboHD Bronze $29.99 - *24* vs {no DirecTV Package}
AT200 + SilverHD $59.99 / TurboHD Silver $37.99- *32* vs Choice + HD $62.98 - *34*
AT250 + GoldHD $69.99 / TurboHD Gold $44.99 - *40* vs Choice Xtra + HD $67.98 - *41*
AEP + GoldHD $109.98 - *59* vs Premier + HD $114.98 - *56*

AEP + GoldHD + PlatinumHD $119.98 - *66* vs Premier + HD + HD Extra $119.97 - *61*​
DirecTV counts 11 RSNs in their claimed 95 ... add that to the Premier + HD if you are so inclined.
RSNs, PPV, VOD, Distants, Locals not included in the counts above. Locals included in prices above.

Comparing the content of AT250 w/HD vs the price of Choice w/o HD is not a good comparison.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Umm the Choice package is $52.99 and then there's a $9.99 HD Access Fee. I haven't done a comparison between the two...but you should start with accurate numbers if you're going to do one.


Thanks for the correction. I just made a mistake when I hit the keys on my calculator. I entered $10.00 instead of $18.00 when I added to the promotion price on DirecTv's website. Still a good deal for me because I liked the 101 channel which Dish does not have. To get the channels I want I would have to get the AT 200 from Dish. Plus with Dish I would not Get CBS HD. This channel is a problem with OTA and it is one the wife watches the most. Also, after having both and installing both I doubt I will ever get another Dish receiver ( especially a DVR ).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you're going to compare prices based on receiving a favorite channel I could make a list of channels that are cheaper on DISH than DirecTV (and vice versa). For example, if your "gotta have" is CBS College Sports you are looking at $64.99 in SD or $73.98 in HD via DirecTV vs $44.99 in SD or $54.99 in HD ($32.99 in HD only) via DISH.

It all depends on what you're looking for!


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

James Long said:


> Funny you should ask --- as just posted in a DISH forum counting thread ... # of HDs in bold:
> 
> AT100 + BronzeHD $47.99 / TurboHD Bronze $29.99 - *24* vs {no DirecTV Package}
> AT200 + SilverHD $59.99 / TurboHD Silver $37.99- *32* vs Choice + HD $62.98 - *34*
> ...


IOW, consistent counting gets us pretty much the same number with both providers when comparing comparable packages.


----------



## Azalo (Oct 24, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> IOW, consistent counting gets us pretty much the same number with both providers when comparing comparable packages.


Thats not really true, for 24.99 you get 24 popular HD channels, for 29.99 (+10 for HD) on D* you get whatever number of channels that appeal to kids, the only channel I watch on the Family package is HGTV, if I had Dish Bronze, I would definitely watch TBS, ESPNs, TNT, HGTV, TLC, SciFi, HDnet, etc. Towards the middle and the high end they are similar, but the lower end package Dish beats D* by a mile.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Azalo said:


> Towards the middle and the high end they are similar, but the lower end package Dish beats D* by a mile.


And that's not surprising, considering DirecTV doesn't seem very interested in low revenue customers. That's precisely why I suggested my parents go with Dish... for someone who doesn't want/need a ton of channels, they are a better value.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Azalo said:


> Why would that concern you, if D* starts losing customers because of this that will be a good thing, they will be forced to lower prices and offer more packages and maybe even an HD only package. I pay 29.99 for family package, its another 10 for HD access and I would much rather pay 24.99 for the channels offered in the Bronze package, and for the same price I am paying D* I could get their Silver or Gold package. Unless D* changes their pricing structure I am definitely switching in January when my contract expires.


That will be the perfect time to switch to Dish because Dish's package increases
take place every Feburary 1 st.:eek2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> That will be the perfect time to switch to Dish because Dish's package increases take place every Feburary 1 st.:eek2:


And DirecTV's take place every March 1st ... pretty much at the same time.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Ah, I dont think that local reciever is going to be putting anything thats coming in at 1080p back to 1080i... i think well see a software update to allow it to oputput 1080p...


Have to downscale if the channel is actually 1080p24 or else people with lesser sets can't watch. On D* HD receivers, you can select what output to downscale. Why not 1080[p?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

V'ger;1713344 said:


> Have to downscale if the channel is actually 1080p24 or else people with lesser sets can't watch. On D* HD receivers, you can select what output to downscale. Why not 1080[p?


Blu-Ray people say that Dish not have real 1080P not real, must be fake 1080P


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> Blu-Ray people say that Dish not have real 1080P not real, must be fake 1080P


You can compress things until it is it is one huge 1080p blinky pixel and it is still 1080p. There is resolution and there is quality. Quality boils down to bitrate for a given codec and resolution. Satellite will never provide over the air bitrates of BluRay, and I doubt the ability to provide comparable bitrates to BluRay on VOD.

As I said two days ago. I fear that the two Sat providers will simply enable upscaling to 1080p and voila! all there channels are BR quality!

Remember that in the mid-late 1990s D* called their SD picture quality better than laserdisc (I can't remember if they said it was DVD quality). Now it is "Digital Quality" transmitted 480x480 and rescaled as 704x480 by the boxes. I expect the same to happen when the number of available HD channels exceeds available bandwidth. HD Lite was 1920x1080 reduced to 1440x1080 - same percentage loss of acutal resolution. Receiver scaled it back to 1920x1080i.

One of the highest bitrates on BD is The Simpon's movie. Kinda usless for a 2D cartoon with solid colors. So I will also say that just because BD has huge bitrates possible, it may not all go to increase quality.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> 5 years from now when every provider has every possible HD channel, what will we sword fight about?


Holographic displays.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> I have no problem with everyone counting VOD as long as they ALL do it. Consistency is the key.


well, comcast calls them "HD choices" not channelss, but choices.

It's a sly feat of trickery, designed to muddy the waters, but still factual.

If you call each downloadable movie a channel....then gee, if HBO has 300 movies on each day, is HBO 300 channels?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

V'ger;1713364 said:


> You can compress things until it is it is one huge 1080p blinky pixel and it is still 1080p. There is resolution and there is quality. Quality boils down to bitrate for a given codec and resolution. Satellite will never provide over the air bitrates of BluRay, and I doubt the ability to provide comparable bitrates to BluRay on VOD.
> 
> As I said two days ago. I fear that the two Sat providers will simply enable upscaling to 1080p and voila! all there channels are BR quality!
> 
> ...


This is probably one of the best and easiest to understand explanations of the issues. Thank you. Despite numerous posts some of us have made here saying the same thing, you have done a great job so that almost anyone can finally "get it" now.


----------



## rcbridge (Oct 31, 2002)

As has been repeated here several times, the addition of more channels is a good thing the other side has to respond and we as consumers should reap the benefits.

Both have put up new satellites and are using Mpeg4.
There are more birds in the plan.

Let the one upmanship continue!!


----------

