# when the new satellites are up...



## sangu72 (Jul 26, 2006)

do you know if the quality of the images will be better? I don't know much about compression but the other day I was watching a soccer game in Worldsports and when there was movement, it got a bit blurry. I imagine that has to do with how much they compress the signal, right? 
If (and when) they have the right amount of bandwith, could the image quality be comparable to FIOS?

Thanks!


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

I doubt they will increase bandwidth... from what I hear even the mpeg4 SD test channels they are testing on 61.5 right now are no better image wise than the current mpeg 2 mess.. Instead of usign the better compression to give better image, they will just pack more on a Transponder


----------



## rbonzer (May 13, 2002)

neowaxworks said:


> I doubt they will increase bandwidth... from what I hear even the mpeg4 SD test channels they are testing on 61.5 right now are no better image wise than the current mpeg 2 mess.. Instead of usign the better compression to give better image, they will just pack more on a Transponder


Which is what bugs me. Why can't there be a provider that prioritizes quality over quantity (and has a good DVR).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Everybody seems to want quantity ... no one has the bandwidth to uplink in quality and quantity.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Everybody seems to want quantity ... no one has the bandwidth to uplink in quality and quantity.


 They could, if they took a different approach... like splitting up some of the types of channels.. like place all the shopping, international and religious programmign on one sat (Along with spot beam locals, or keep them all on 118)
Place all HD, Sports and premium on a second sat (Like 110) use 119 and 129 for the remaining and all the rest of the local spot beams...you could give them all as bit better quality, and would let people pick and shoose a little more..(Like I wouldn't need 118 cause I don't watch the shopping and religious channels)
heck they could then move 61.5 to join 110 to add more channels at that slot...there seem to me, a lot of ways they COULD do it...not that I think they ever would


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

neowaxworks said:


> They could, if they took a different approach... like splitting up some of the types of channels.. like place all the shopping, international and religious programmign on one sat (Along with spot beam locals, or keep them all on 118)
> Place all HD, Sports and premium on a second sat (Like 110) use 119 and 129 for the remaining and all the rest of the local spot beams...you could give them all as bit better quality, and would let people pick and shoose a little more..(Like I wouldn't need 118 cause I don't watch the shopping and religious channels)
> heck they could then move 61.5 to join 110 to add more channels at that slot...there seem to me, a lot of ways they COULD do it...not that I think they ever would


You have absolutely zero understanding of how this works... and what you just posted has no relevance to a real solution.

Right now, they are pretty close to being bandwidth limited. Your options are increase bandwidth or decrease channels if you want to increase quality. That situation will not change any time in the forseeable future, because any future bandwidth increases will get eaten up by more overly compressed HD channels and the future HD locals.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

grooves12 said:


> You have absolutely zero understanding of how this works... and what you just posted has no relevance to a real solution.
> 
> Right now, they are pretty close to being bandwidth limited. Your options are increase bandwidth or decrease channels if you want to increase quality. That situation will not change any time in the forseeable future, because any future bandwidth increases will get eaten up by more overly compressed HD channels and the future HD locals.


ummm... ok.. and how do I have no understanding of how this works???..lol I prolly know more about it than mos there...
if you look at what I said..I was offloading a crap load of niche channels onto 118, freeing up space on other sats...then priortizing what channels are on EACH sat so that say, someone that only watches premiums and sports would only need to point at ONE sat...
They are no where near close to being bandwidth limited if they utilize the space on 118 for more than just a few internationals


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm always amazed when I see Dish talk of more HD. It baffles me on how they find space to fit the channels,but I would much rather quality than quantity.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> They could, if they took a different approach... like splitting up some of the types of channels.. like place all the shopping, international and religious programmign on one sat (Along with spot beam locals, or keep them all on 118)
> Place all HD, Sports and premium on a second sat (Like 110) use 119 and 129 for the remaining and all the rest of the local spot beams...you could give them all as bit better quality, and would let people pick and shoose a little more..(Like I wouldn't need 118 cause I don't watch the shopping and religious channels)
> heck they could then move 61.5 to join 110 to add more channels at that slot...there seem to me, a lot of ways they COULD do it...not that I think they ever would


What you just described equates to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic... you've put the passengers in different locations, but the result remains unchanged... no matter what you 'shoose'.

(Only a true, die-hard videophile would truly be able to discern between MPEG2 and MPEG4 compression, anyway) 99.98% of the gen pop only knows: HD pretty... SD ugly... (grunt, scratch, fart)


----------



## jgurley (Feb 1, 2005)

sangu72 said:


> do you know if the quality of the images will be better? I don't know much about compression but the other day I was watching a soccer game in Worldsports and when there was movement, it got a bit blurry. I imagine that has to do with how much they compress the signal, right?
> If (and when) they have the right amount of bandwith, could the image quality be comparable to FIOS?
> 
> Thanks!


Is your TV a LCD? If it is then that might explain the blurriness while watching fast action. My son has FIOS (prior to that Comcast, Directv, Dish) and blurriness with fast action scenes seems to be one drawback to his LCD.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> What you just described equates to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic... you've put the passengers in different locations, but the result remains unchanged.


Umm how you figure?? Moving the shopping and religeous channels to 118 alone would free up about 50 slots....also moving to all 8psk would increase capacity greatly...


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

jgurley said:


> Is your TV a LCD? If it is then that might explain the blurriness while watching fast action. My son has FIOS (prior to that Comcast, Directv, Dish) and blurriness with fast action scenes seems to be one drawback to his LCD.


I've noticed what he is talking about.. it isn't present on OTA broadcasts....the encoder isn't fast enough to catch REALLY fast scene changes so they blur out somewhat...


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> Umm how you figure?? Moving the shopping and religeous channels to 118 alone would free up about 50 slots....also moving to all 8psk would increase capacity greatly...


Let's look at it this way... let's say your dish is set to pick up 110, 119 & 129. You want as much HD as you can get.

I'm DISH. I decide that I can light up 200 HD channels tomorrow... I just need to move them all to 61.5... so that's what I do.

How would you like that?


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> Let's look at it this way... let's say your dish is set to pick up 110, 119 & 129. You want as much HD as you can get.
> 
> I'm DISH. I decide that I can light up 200 HD channels tomorrow... I just need to move them all to 61.5... so that's what I do.
> 
> How would you like that?


wouldn't bother me a bit...take me 5 minutes to aim a second (old Dtv 18") dish at 61.5 and add it to the DP switch


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

sangu72 said:


> do you know if the quality of the images will be better? I don't know much about compression but the other day I was watching a soccer game in Worldsports and when there was movement, it got a bit blurry. I imagine that has to do with how much they compress the signal, right?
> If (and when) they have the right amount of bandwith, could the image quality be comparable to FIOS?
> 
> Thanks!


When it comes to LCD displays, it's not the bandwidth coming into your set, it's how adept your particular LCD is in regard to processing the images. I believe the relevant factor is the 'refresh rate'... measured in milliseconds. The lower the value, the greater the likelihood you'll experience the blur.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> wouldn't bother me a bit...take me 5 minutes to aim a second (old Dtv 18") dish at 61.5 and add it to the DP switch


It may not bother you, but:

A) How does that impact your subscriber base?... and,

2) Bandwidth is still a zero-sum game when it comes to satellites. There's only so much to be had... and you either add birds, change compression, or both.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> It may not bother you, but:
> 
> A) How does that impact your subscriber base?... and,
> 
> 2) Bandwidth is still a zero-sum game when it comes to satellites. There's only so much to be had... and you either add birds, change compression, or both.


I dont' disagree...thats why in my senerio I offloaded the niche channels to 119=8, thats effectively adds Usable transponders....118 can be had with a special 119 lnb, so VERY little cost to subs if they want those channels


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> I dont' disagree...thats why in my senerio I offloaded the niche channels to 119=8, thats effectively adds Usable transponders....118 can be had with a special 119 lnb, so VERY little cost to subs if they want those channels


What do you consider 'very little cost'? If I'm a sub and you start moving my $#!+ around just so you get what you want and expect ME to pay for it, you're nuts... I don't care how 'little cost'.

And how do you decide which channels are worthy and which are not?

This is such a tired train of thought anyway. It's been beat to death in several "ditch VOOM and spark up The Weather Channel HD, et al" threads...

Your proposal is just a variation on a 'senario' that, frankly, has been beaten to death.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> What do you consider 'very little cost'? If I'm a sub and you start moving my $#!+ around just so you get what you want and expect ME to pay for it, you're nuts... I don't care how 'little cost'.
> 
> And how do you decide which channels are worthy and which are not?
> 
> ...


$20 for a replacment 119 lnb or about $30 for a replacment Dp 500 lnb that gets 118 as well (It's slightly wider on the incomming signal section...)

And I am only talking the home shopping channels, religeous channels and all those university, colors, etc...that are in the upper 9000....all together about 50 slots could be opened.. you'd only need a 119/119 lnb if you WANTED those


----------



## sangu72 (Jul 26, 2006)

jgurley said:


> Is your TV a LCD? If it is then that might explain the blurriness while watching fast action. My son has FIOS (prior to that Comcast, Directv, Dish) and blurriness with fast action scenes seems to be one drawback to his LCD.


No, it's a DLP (Samsung). It's more noticeable when watching certain channels. I'm looking forward to seeing the final of the Miami tennis tournament on Sunday (on an over the air channel) to see how it deals with fast movement.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> $20 for a replacment 119 lnb or about $30 for a replacment Dp 500 lnb that gets 118 as well (It's slightly wider on the incomming signal section...)
> 
> And I am only talking the home shopping channels, religeous channels and all those university, colors, etc...that are in the upper 9000....all together about 50 slots could be opened.. you'd only need a 119/119 lnb if you WANTED those


As I noted when I said: "This is such a tired train of thought anyway. It's been beat to death in several "ditch VOOM and spark up The Weather Channel HD, et al" threads..."... ... ....

Who are you to decide that the shopping, 'religeous', and 'all those university, colors, etc...that are in the upper 9000" channels are to be cast aside?

Let alone... who are _*you *_to decide that _*I *_should be willing to spend *any *amount of money for a 'replacment' 119 lnb or Dp 500 lnb or whatever and sacrifice what I already get so you can get what you want?

Ugh!... again...

Tired...

Train...

Of...

Thought...


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> As I noted when I said: "This is such a tired train of thought anyway. It's been beat to death in several "ditch VOOM and spark up The Weather Channel HD, et al" threads..."... ... ....
> 
> Who are you to decide that the shopping, 'religeous', and 'all those university, colors, etc...that are in the upper 9000" channels are to be cast aside?
> 
> ...


 Common sense would decide that.. why should I or anyone else have to sacrifice having the Channels we want just so you dont' have to change anything to watch a niche channel??

see goes both ways.. you think we should have to sacrfice cause you dont' want to give uo what you want...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

neowaxworks said:


> see goes both ways.. you think we should have to sacrfice cause you dont' want to give uo what you want...


Existing services win. If you don't like that, buy the company and run it any way you want (while we all run to DirecTV  ).

And solution that starts with "remove the channels I don't like" is dead before it starts and cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> Common sense would decide that.. why should I or anyone else have to sacrifice having the Channels we want just so you dont' have to change anything to watch a niche channel??
> 
> see goes both ways.. you think we should have to sacrfice cause you dont' want to give uo what you want...


OK. I'll play for a minute.

Please list your top 10 HD channels...


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

sangu72 said:


> No, it's a DLP (Samsung). It's more noticeable when watching certain channels. I'm looking forward to seeing the final of the Miami tennis tournament on Sunday (on an over the air channel) to see how it deals with fast movement.


Some depends on the resolution of the channel. Those that are broadcast in 720p are far less likely to blur then those that broadcast in 1080i.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> Some depends on the resolution of the channel. Those that are broadcast in 720p are far less likely to blur then those that broadcast in 1080i.


There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that higher-quality source material results in a lesser-quality picture on some HDTV's.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that higher-quality source material results in a lesser-quality picture on some HDTV's.


most medium range tv's are only 720p(all up to about 40 Inch)... so some conversion has to be done internally with higher resolution streams...

HAving said that, in the case of dish, they do not devote enough bandwidth to the 1080i material...hence getting a worse picture than lower resolution 720P (At the same bitrate)


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

It even happens with OTA broadcasts. You think it is an accident that FOX, the largest OTA broadcaster of sports, uses 720p?


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> HAving said that, in the case of dish, they do not devote enough bandwidth to the 1080i material...hence getting a worse picture than lower resolution 720P (At the same bitrate)


OMG

I almost hesitate to ask (especially since I'm still waiting for you to respond with your HD Top Ten)... but I'll ask just the same:

What is your source reference when your claim that DISH does not devote enough bandwidth to the 1080i material?


----------



## digital223 (Dec 19, 2002)

bartendress said:


> When it comes to LCD displays, it's not the bandwidth coming into your set, it's how adept your particular LCD is in regard to processing the images. I believe the relevant factor is the 'refresh rate'... measured in milliseconds. The lower the value, the greater the likelihood you'll experience the blur.


????????


----------



## aloishus27 (Aug 8, 2006)

bartendress said:


> When it comes to LCD displays, it's not the bandwidth coming into your set, it's how adept your particular LCD is in regard to processing the images. I believe the relevant factor is the 'refresh rate'... measured in milliseconds. The lower the value, the greater the likelihood you'll experience the blur.


the lower the milliseconds the LESS likelihood of having a blurred image.

You were thinking of CRTs and the higher Hz.

CRTs had a scan rate measured in Hz, or cycles per second for the laymen.

LCDs are measured in how fast they can turn on and off.. thus the faster they can do it the better. They measure this quality in the amount of time it takes to do it. Hence the lower the number the better.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> OMG
> 
> I almost hesitate to ask (especially since I'm still waiting for you to respond with your HD Top Ten)... but I'll ask just the same:
> 
> What is your source reference when your claim that DISH does not devote enough bandwidth to the 1080i material?


seeing it visually.. when you get macroblocking on scenes with a lot of movement, it means a LACK of bitrate...Bitrate=bandwidth... they are one in the same.. more bitrate - more bandwidth, less bitrate = less bandwidth...for ANY particular channel...same principle as the SD stuff.. you have major artifacting because the channels are bitrate starved. Dish can't devote enough bandwidth to each channel to give them decent bitrates...

I could prolly also analyze a reording and tell you the exact bit rate..

and what HD top 10???.. I've not seen a post asking for a list...


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

bartendress said:


> (Only a true, die-hard videophile would truly be able to discern between MPEG2 and MPEG4 compression, anyway) 99.98% of the gen pop only knows: HD pretty... SD ugly... (grunt, scratch, fart)


Bartendress you owe me a new keyboard because this one has coke all over it.  :hurah: :hurah:  :lol: :lol:  :hurah:


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

bartendress said:


> OK. I'll play for a minute.
> 
> Please list your top 10 HD channels...


Ahhh found it...
I don't have a top 10...the only HD channels I care about are sci-fi, espn, espn2 and History....I can take or leave any of the others and have no concern if they are NOT there....


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Existing services win. If you don't like that, buy the company and run it any way you want (while we all run to DirecTV  ).
> 
> And solution that starts with "remove the channels I don't like" is dead before it starts and cannot be taken seriously.


I never said remove ANY channels...I said MOVE certain channels to 118, along with the internationals...
Tis no different than spot beaming locals on 61.5

But anyway I can guarentee I could manage the content BETTER than Dish is currently doing, keep customers happy AND add channels in a timely mannor...
Starting with keeping customer Updated on what I am doing, and not carrying channels that no one watches to start with.....


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

A certain number of public interest channels (mostly 9400-9418) has to be carried on each slot. See http://ekb.dbstalk.com/pi.htm


----------



## Ressurrector (Jan 1, 2008)

sangu72 said:


> do you know if the quality of the images will be better? I don't know much about compression but the other day I was watching a soccer game in Worldsports and when there was movement, it got a bit blurry. I imagine that has to do with how much they compress the signal, right?
> If (and when) they have the right amount of bandwith, could the image quality be comparable to FIOS?
> 
> Thanks!


I heard thats why sports leans toward 720 (P) I hear the progressive makes all the difference in fast moving sports. Set your dish receiver to 720P and try awhile and see if makes a difference. If its took this long for the world's tv broadcasting to adopt 1080 (i) then 1080 progessive is a bluray wet dream if you ask me for MANY years at least to come for general TV broadcast be it satelite or terrestrial


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ressurrector said:


> I heard thats why sports leans toward 720 (P) I hear the progressive makes all the difference in fast moving sports.


Mostly the Disney and Fox families of channels lean towards 720p. Most other channels are 1080i regardless of content.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

neowaxworks said:


> I never said remove ANY channels...I said MOVE certain channels to 118, along with the internationals...
> Tis no different than spot beaming locals on 61.5


It is a lot different. You are telling the majority 13 million customers who get their channels off of 119° and 110° that in order to KEEP the programming they have today that they need to get a new dish installed. Who is paying for that? The customer or DISH? If a long time customer with no interest in HD and no benefit from the change other than not losing channels is being forced to install a new dish they might as well install a DirecTV dish instead.

You might as well remove the channels if you're going to make them unavailable to current subscribers on current equipment. Migrating HD to the wings (where there is space) is a different issue - it is giving the minority more if they are willing and able to make a minor change. Not harming the entire customer base.



> But anyway I can guarentee I could manage the content BETTER than Dish is currently doing, keep customers happy AND add channels in a timely mannor...
> Starting with keeping customer Updated on what I am doing, and not carrying channels that no one watches to start with.....


I look forward to seeing how well you do. 

Actually, I've seen a lot of companies where the boss tries to run it like a toy ... making decisions based on whim and fancy and what they want to do instead of what makes economic sense. Perhaps you believe Mr Ergen is doing this ... but he has managed to turn a profit every quarter for a long long time ... despite the naysayers. He _IS_ doing what makes economic sense.


----------



## Ressurrector (Jan 1, 2008)

harsh said:


> Mostly the Disney and Fox families of channels lean towards 720p. Most other channels are 1080i regardless of content.


I am just refering to an article I read once that progressive scanning yields motion better then interlaced scanning. Why they're realizing this revelation now is beyond me. I am not too big on sports but why does espn 1 and 2 have the bars on the sides when you are in 1080i mode normal view? just curious


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

Ressurrector said:


> I am just refering to an article I read once that progressive scanning yields motion better then interlaced scanning. Why they're realizing this revelation now is beyond me. I am not too big on sports but why does espn 1 and 2 have the bars on the sides when you are in 1080i mode normal view? just curious


 Both ESPN's are 720P..they do not broadcast in 1080i..


----------



## Kirby (Apr 6, 2008)

neowaxworks said:


> They could, if they took a different approach... like splitting up some of the types of channels.. like place all the shopping, international and religious programmign on one sat (Along with spot beam locals, or keep them all on 118)


The biggest problem with this from a business standpoint is that the shopping channels and at least some of the religious channels pay cable/Sat providers to include them in their programming. Dish would be asking for trouble from not just the customers but their business partners as well....and you don't need to piss off 2 sources of revenue in one move.

Though for the record any programming moves that positively affect what I like to watch in terms of quality and quantity I am totally for, screw everybody else!


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Another factor is that the FCC requires sat providers to have a certain number of Public service stations on each satellite - they CAN'T move them.


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

Jim5506 said:


> Another factor is that the FCC requires sat providers to have a certain number of Public service stations on each satellite - they CAN'T move them.


ohh?? If i go to C band G5..nope. no public service...nor do I see anyone T5, t6..., wait...nope ..nothing on F2....
they are not required to broadcast them....


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

neowaxworks said:


> ohh?? If i go to C band G5..nope. no public service...nor do I see anyone T5, t6..., wait...nope ..nothing on F2....
> they are not required to broadcast them....


Doh!!! Amazing how that works. C Band is not "DBS", it is a commercial transport system and does not fall under the public service requirements. If you would like to do some reading on the subject, feel free to look here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=100&SECTION=5&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT



> (c) Carriage obligation for noncommercial programming--(1)
> Reservation requirement. *DBS providers *shall reserve four percent of
> their channel capacity exclusively for use by qualified programmers for
> noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature.


----------



## Kman68 (Jan 24, 2008)

sangu72 said:


> do you know if the quality of the images will be better? I don't know much about compression but the other day I was watching a soccer game in Worldsports and when there was movement, it got a bit blurry. I imagine that has to do with how much they compress the signal, right?
> If (and when) they have the right amount of bandwith, could the image quality be comparable to FIOS?
> 
> Thanks!


Back to the original question, yes, the new birds will increase bandwidth by moving more channels to mpeg4 compression.

And to fan flames, ABC choose 720p because of MNF and other sports content.

If you read "Sound & Vision," "Home Theater Magazine" and the likes, the critics all agree in the great 720p, 1080i, 1080p debate that 720p is the superior resolution because of the smooth image. 1080p has a couple of drawbacks. Two biggies are 24 fps and no native sources. The frame rate is a big sticking point. It does not matter how many times you upconvert the source, 1080p starts with 24 fps which is below the threshold of human perception. Mpeg4 operates on the same 24 fps. I don't mind, my eyes adjust quickly. It gives my wife a headache. She claims it is like staring at a strobe light.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Kman68 said:


> Two biggies are 24 fps and no native sources.


This is just silly. Feature length movies have been shot at 24fps for about 80 years. 24fps TV is actually 23.976 frames per second, but the human eye probably doesn't differentiate the missing 4/1000 of a second. Finally, yes, there are 24fps video cameras.


> It gives my wife a headache. She claims it is like staring at a strobe light.


Perhaps she doesn't like going to the movie theater with you?

The 24fps thing came not from discernible flicker, but from the size of the film reels and how fast the film could reasonably move through the camera and projector. In the early 1900s film was typically shot at 16fps.

I know a couple of people who are quite bothered by the flickering of fluorescent lamps. There is also much discussion about the evil DLP color wheel.


----------

