# MPEG4/MPEG2 Discussion (Merged)



## styxfix (Aug 7, 2002)

We won't know really how well the 622 receiver performs until there are some HD channels in the MPEG4 format. Until then, we really won't know how good this receiver will be. These new HD channels are still in MPEG2, but are only on the new VIP series receivers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

styxfix said:


> These new HD channels are still in MPEG2


What makes you say that? Have you been able to watch the new channels on a "enhanced" MPEG2 receiver? Did you confirm that a program recorded from a new channel takes as much or more space than the same program recorded from an MPEG2 channel?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

There is posts stating that the new channels are MPEG2 with MPEG4 headers on them... I believe that is what styxfix is referring to. Correct me if I am wrong styxfix.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> There is posts stating that the new channels are MPEG2 with MPEG4 headers on them... I believe that is what styxfix is referring to. Correct me if I am wrong styxfix.


I'm not saying I doubt the information, as I've seen it floating around too... but it doesn't seem like the kind of information Dish would make public does it?

So someone must be violating a confidentiality agreement for that information to be public if it is true, unless it comes from someone using a hacked receiver... in which case the source of the information is unreliable based on being a hacker, no?

All I know is I can't get the new channels on my existing HD receiver, so I'm making upgrade plans.


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

HDMe said:


> I'm not saying I doubt the information, as I've seen it floating around too... but it doesn't seem like the kind of information Dish would make public does it?
> 
> So someone must be violating a confidentiality agreement for that information to be public if it is true, unless it comes from someone using a hacked receiver... in which case the source of the information is unreliable based on being a hacker, no?
> 
> All I know is I can't get the new channels on my existing HD receiver, so I'm making upgrade plans.


It is public information, it is in the stream unencrypted, you do not need a hacked receiver to determine this information. Dish didn't come out and say it for obvious reasons. The truth is if they changed the channel type on these channels, any of the old HD receivers would have NO problem viewing them.

Dish is forcing you to make upgrade plans because of this decision of theirs.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

HDMe said:


> So someone must be violating a confidentiality agreement for that information to be public if it is true, unless it comes from someone using a hacked receiver... in which case the source of the information is unreliable based on being a hacker, no?


No the data stream is not encrypted. There is nothing to hack.


----------



## rollua1 (Sep 9, 2003)

hokieengineer said:


> It is public information, it is in the stream unencrypted, you do not need a hacked receiver to determine this information. Dish didn't come out and say it for obvious reasons. The truth is if they changed the channel type on these channels, any of the old HD receivers would have NO problem viewing them.
> 
> Dish is forcing you to make upgrade plans because of this decision of theirs.


Now that really makes me mad and I don't even own a 942


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

What would be worse, being able to see the new HD channels on your 6000,811, 921 or 942 only to lose them once E* hits the "MPEG-4 switch"? 

This was a business decision E* made, and I can't blame them. Can you imagine what would happen to the call centers the day the MPEG-4 switch happens? 

OTOH: Getting a "free preview" of these future MPRG-4 channels might entice some of us who may be on the fence about upgrading our receivers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

hokieengineer said:


> It is public information, it is in the stream unencrypted, you do not need a hacked receiver to determine this information. Dish didn't come out and say it for obvious reasons. The truth is if they changed the channel type on these channels, any of the old HD receivers would have NO problem viewing them.
> 
> Dish is forcing you to make upgrade plans because of this decision of theirs.


If they are going to go MPEG4 at some point anyway... I understand this decision. "Forcing" those of us who want more new channels to pay more and get new receivers, but letting us stay exactly where we are at the current package prices if we don't want to upgrade yet. I get a choice.

And if they turned on the channels now in MPEG2, then they would find many more customers complaining if they tried to take those away and convert to MPEG4 at some point 6 months or so down the road. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

But on the hacking front... just how do you find out this information about the stream without somehow hacking your receiver? My receiver doesn't tell me anything about the stream.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

HDMe said:


> But on the hacking front... just how do you find out this information about the stream without somehow hacking your receiver? My receiver doesn't tell me anything about the stream.


Dish uses the DVB standard to transmit their signals. There are PC cards that decode the standard. Note that they use the standard, and all sorts of information is in the clear and can be decoded. The programming streams themselves are they only thing encrypted.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Remember guys.. No hack talk allowed.. We are walking a fine line here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Remember guys.. No hack talk allowed.. We are walking a fine line here.


I didn't want to talk about hacking... that was kind of the point I was trying to make actually. I was trying to figure out just how someone could come by this kind of information honestly, and didn't think it was possible.

Therefore I wasn't sure I completely believed (or cared really) about the information if it was coming from a hacked box or a compromised "source".


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

There are legit ways of getting this information. I just did not want this thread wondering off into the gray areas.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hokieengineer said:


> It is public information


Could you please provide a location (URI, ISBN number etc.) for all of us to find this public information? Thus far the documented proof seems strangely elusive.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> There is posts stating that the new channels are MPEG2 with MPEG4 headers on them... I believe that is what styxfix is referring to. Correct me if I am wrong styxfix.


That is the way the MPEG4 data will ALWAYS be transmitted. There is no transport stream defined for MPEG4. Therefore the transport stream will be that as defined in the MPEG2 standard and contain MPEG4 data. There is no evil plot by DISH here. It's a matter of understanding how the data is carried.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Mike123abc said:


> Dish uses the DVB standard to transmit their signals. There are PC cards that decode the standard. Note that they use the standard, and all sorts of information is in the clear and can be decoded. The programming streams themselves are they only thing encrypted.


FWIW: Dish uses DVB for the SD channels but uses 8VSB for all the HD channels.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

You mean 8PSK.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

peano said:


> You mean 8PSK.


Oops my mistake, I was thinking OTA modulation as I was typing...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hokieengineer said:


> Dish is forcing you to make upgrade plans because of this decision of theirs.


That is true regardless of what MPEG is in use, making the MPEG2/MPEG4 debate near irrelevant.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

hokieengineer said:


> Dish is forcing you to make upgrade plans because of this decision of theirs.


No one is forcing you to do anything. If you don't like Dish's programming and prices and practices, then you are more than free to switch to DirecTV, cable, FIOS, or nothing.

It astounds me that people don't understand this issue from Dish's point of view. Again, if you don't like the fact that for now, Dish isn't actually using MPEG4 because MPEG4 isn't ready, but instead Dish doesn't want to deal with the nightmare that would occur if they gave you these channels with an MPEG2 header so that current receivers could get the channels and then have those channels disappear when they switch to MPEG4, then switch to some other provider. It's that simple!


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

I honestly don't think it would be a nightmare. As long as they're really using MPEG2 because they see no benefit to MPEG4, what does it hurt to give it to current subs as a preview? It gives them time to stockpile enough receivers to keep up with demand, rather than the all at once approach they're taking. I personally think the best policy would be to put the new national HD and east/west coast distants up in MPEG2 (available on 6000/811/921/942) with the announcement that these channels will only be available on a ViP receiver after a given date, say six months out. That should give them enough time to swap out a pile of receivers AND improve MPEG4 efficiency. This provides better customer service and reduces demand on E* support staff (CSR's and installers) as well as retailers. Anyone who is serious about keeping the channels is going to make sure that he or she has a ViP receiver in time for the "cutoff", plus it might even entice some additional subs to upgrade to the DishHD metal tiers. Maybe as HD LiL's other than NY/LA launch, require a ViP receiver to receive those. If the 5 markets per month is to be realized, then that would be 30 DMA's worth of MPEG4 receivers that would have a "built-in" schedule for swap-out. What would they have to lose? Maybe there would be some customers who would question where their channels went, but then so be it - they had a chance to upgrade, unlike the current scramble that appears to be happening. To top it all off, E* would have even had some breathing room for their CSR's to become familiar with the new promos. Judging by the sheer number of threads/posts here yesterday, as well as the number of bad experiences that have been described, I'd say that the 2/1 launch day was a mess. I didn't really have any problems personally, but then again my situation was about as simple and straightforward as you can get. I just think that this would have been much smoother and E* would have looked like the proverbial "hero" had this launch been approached differently.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

dave1234 said:


> That is the way the MPEG4 data will ALWAYS be transmitted. There is no transport stream defined for MPEG4. Therefore the transport stream will be that as defined in the MPEG2 standard and contain MPEG4 data. There is no evil plot by DISH here. It's a matter of understanding how the data is carried.


Since I have only read some threads without actually seeing the stream data, I am really not sure what the implicatations are. Dave.. Mind clueing some of the people including myself as to your thoughts on the issue. The threads I have read state MPEG2 with MPEG4 headers. From what your posts says above is that MPEG4 rides on the same transport stream as MPEG2. However, from the posts I read it sounded like the actual MPEG2 stream contained MPEG4 headers not the transport machansim.

From what I know of data streaming, usually it is a wrapper effect. One protocal wrapped within another. What I would expect is MPEG2 wrapped within a transport protocal and MPEG4 wrapped within the same transport protocal. So is the MPEG4 header part of the MPEG2 payload or the transport payload?

There is definitely two positions to take here as to if it is a good idea to let the new channels into the MPEG2 reciever world. I see both sides of the argument and it is definitely a damn if you do.. damn if you don't. migrations are always tough!


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

harsh said:


> Could you please provide a location (URI, ISBN number etc.) for all of us to find this public information? Thus far the documented proof seems strangely elusive.


Please go here and click on mpeg-2 on the menu at the left. Great guide to DVB.
http://www.coolstf.com/

Another decent writeup:
http://www.interactivetvweb.org/tutorial/dtv-intro/dtv-intro.shtml

A DVB pci card + tsreader can bring you a wealth of information. Very cool for the techie who likes to know how things work behind the scenes.

The fact remains that you have to tune to the transponder in order to see what type of channel it is. Which in the case of HD (8psk modulated transponders), very few people can do.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That's enough. We're not going to get into PID information here. Ron has already warned the thread not to cross the line. Don't do it.

Post removed. Thread Closed.

James Long


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

I dont see what is wrong with posting PID and PMT information? There is no encryption on any of that data. You cant use it for any bad purposes. It defines the video streams on the transponder. 

Anyways, I had posted proof that the person who had posted "there is no such thing as a mpeg4 transport stream" was wrong. I wont repost my evidence, but its up there. Now people will read that other thread and think that maybe these channels are really mpeg4/AVC. They aren't.

You guys can hide the truth all you want, its out there, I dont understand what the big deal is.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

hokie, what I missed here ?


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

P Smith said:


> hokie, what I missed here ?


I posted the PMT info from an existing mpeg2 HD channel, from a new mpeg2 HD channel, and from a chicago local HD channel (which is true mpeg4/AVC).

Just showing the difference between the channels and why these 7 new channels are NOT mpeg4/AVC at the moment.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

oh geez ! you scared to death the local administration now 

we all will die tomorrow


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Continuing a thread that is closed is NOT good behavior.

The truth has been discussed. People know all about the claims that MPEG4 is really MPEG2.
You were asked kindly not to cross the line, hokieengineer, and you still crossed it.


----------



## hokieengineer (Jul 31, 2004)

James Long said:


> Continuing a thread that is closed is NOT good behavior.
> 
> The truth has been discussed. You were asked kindly not to cross the line, hokieengineer, and you still crossed it.


But wait, the line was hacking. I did not talk about hacking. I posted system information tables that are freely available. Please explain how what I posted was related to hacking.

You may take it PM if you wish.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I closed the thread until this issue is worked out off line. Please do not start another continuation thread or it will be removed.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

After reviewing the thread, I feel the thread was closed for a reason. The problem as I see it is the poster went too far by reopening a closed thread that was under review. Users have been banned in the past for such actions.

As such, I am going to suspend the poster for 5 days for continuing a closed topic. If a subsequent violation occurs a permanent ban will be issued.

I thought of reopening the thread because I myself was interested in where it was leading, but the followup reopening was totally inappropriate.

If there is ever a question about a thread that was closed, and the poster can justify their position, you can always ask Admin about it, and we will review your point of view and consider it. But again, going around a mod and just taking it into your own hands, that's inappropriate.

Now please respect the decision.


----------

