# Is Dish Misleading on Mpeg-4?



## MarkoC (Apr 5, 2004)

I just read this at AVS forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=628298

If this is true, I won't be happy.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

At some point a decision has to be made whether a channel will be Mpeg4 or not. Apparently ESPN2 HD, Universal HD and the 5 new VOOM channels have been placed in the Mpeg4 category which could possibly mean they are planned to be Mpeg4 at some point in the Future. It is far better to require an Mpeg4 capable receiver at the launch of these channels regardless of what format they are actually in. There is also a new pricing structure apparently associated with the launch of these channels, so none of them are anything we are entitled to as a current subscriber. Hopefully there will be a reasonable upgrade offer for current subscribers.


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

This rant will be legit tomorrow IF dish doesn't announce a sweet upgrade deal for existing subs tonight. I was at the CES Press conference and it sounded like it would be a good deal, but he didn't give details. He said details would be announced during the Charlie chat.



MarkoC said:


> I just read this at AVS forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=628298
> 
> If this is true, I won't be happy.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

MarkoC said:


> I just read this at AVS forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=628298
> 
> If this is true, I won't be happy.


Well the fact is Mpeg4 will ALWAYS be transported in a Mpeg2 or IP transport stream. There is no transport stream defined for Mpeg 4. I think there is gross misunderstanding happening....


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

Do we really have to go through this again.


----------



## MarkoC (Apr 5, 2004)

Jeff McClellan said:


> Do we really have to go through this again.


When did we go through it before? Maybe I missed something, but when I read this on AVSforum this morning it was the first I had heard of it. I don't believe there are any other threads here that address this topic. If anyone can correct me on this, please do.

I am certainly not stating that I believe the allegations are true. I have no idea whether they are or not. All I said was that if it is true that Dish is saying the channels will be in Mpeg-4 just so they can get people to buy or upgrade to new receivers, when in fact they will still be using the same amount of bandwith, I would find that troubling.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

dave1234 said:


> Well the fact is Mpeg4 will ALWAYS be transported in a Mpeg2 or IP transport stream. There is no transport stream defined for Mpeg 4. I think there is gross misunderstanding happening....


The transport stream is DVB-S.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

MarkoC said:


> When did we go through it before? Maybe I missed something, but when I read this on AVSforum this morning it was the first I had heard of it. I don't believe there are any other threads here that address this topic. If anyone can correct me on this, please do.
> 
> I am certainly not stating that I believe the allegations are true. I have no idea whether they are or not. All I said was that if it is true that Dish is saying the channels will be in Mpeg-4 just so they can get people to buy or upgrade to new receivers, when in fact they will still be using the same amount of bandwith, I would find that troubling.


It isn't you good questions, it is just the originator of the thread at AVS, has made his personal crusade to lead people in his direction, or thoughts. And the reality is, we don't know for sure at this point. But by no means was I blaming you for posting.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

OK, here's a few thoughts:

Say that Echostar came up with a package of cool new channels but decided to offer them only to people with a "SuperDish" antenna. If you want those channels you must get a SuperDish - that's the rules - and E* will help upgrade you to a SuperDish if you want those channels. You physically cannot get those channels without a SuperDish (or homebrew version).

Say that Echostar came up with a package of cool new channels but decided to offer them only to people with DVR-625 receivers. If you want those channels you must get a 625 - that's the rules - and E* will help upgrade you to a 625 if you want those channels. What if "technically" a 510 or a 311 or a 2700 could get those channels? - their offer is "ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS with a DVR-625".

The difference between those two scenarios is that in the first there is a workaround for people who do not want to follow Dish's rules. They can get a FSS dish elsewhere and hack it into their system. Replace "SuperDish" with "D1000" in that scenario and the homebrew solution is even easier. But with the second scenario there is no workaround.

That's the real issue that Gary is raising on AVSForums. He's ticked because his tried and true model 6000 that he has modified to allow him to record HD will not be able to receive the channels (without going to the dark side of signal theft).

But here's another look:

Say that what was said in November's Tech Forum was 100% true - that real time MPEG2 encoders were more efficient than MPEG4 at this point in time and it may be a year for the encoders to catch up. So instead of using 'not up to par' MPEG4 E* is really using tried and true MPEG2. E* using their resources to the best of their ability. But they expect that sometime later in the year MPEG4 will pass MPEG2 (perhaps by pre-encoding Voom content in MPEG4 and not attempting real time encoding?). They also expect to have a limited number of channels in 'true' MPEG4 (such as JohnH has reported with HD locals).

That leaves them with two options:
1) Sell a new DishHD package to people with receivers that by the end of the year will no longer work with the channels in that package and face the annoyance of customers at that time.
2) Sell a new DishHD package to people with receivers that will continue to work until E* comes up with something better than 8PSK/MPEG4 - softening the annoyance of needing to upgrade receivers with the benefit of getting new content.

Annoy people later or now? It doesn't seem like much of a choice. Since the recievers are ready to roll (or will be soon) they might as well get the pain over with.

JL


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah that's pretty much how it goes.

Since they are no longer adding channels to 110 (even though they could with the idle TP they have), they'll need a new package because they can't add espn2 and unviersal HD to the same dish hd pack when a lot of folks still only have a dish 500.

So the new package with channels that they eventually hope to have in MPEG4 would be why they would want to require an mpeg4 receiver now versus later (and MPEG4 is a big marketing buzz so dish is jumping on it even if they aren't using it) also the new channels require a dish 1000 or wing dish at 61.5


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

And those puppies are ready to roll.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BFG said:


> Yeah that's pretty much how it goes.
> 
> Since they are no longer adding channels to 110 (even though they could with the idle TP they have), they'll need a new package because they can't add espn2 and unviersal HD to the same dish hd pack when a lot of folks still only have a dish 500.
> 
> So the new package with channels that they eventually hope to have in MPEG4 would be why they would want to require an mpeg4 receiver now versus later (and MPEG4 is a big marketing buzz so dish is jumping on it even if they aren't using it) also the new channels require a dish 1000 or wing dish at 61.5


Just for clarity - there are channels that are reading true MPEG4 - beyond what E* put in the channels table. There will be MPEG4 channels in the DishHD packages. Just not every channel immediately. The existing 18 channels are going to have to stay MPEG2 for a transition period anyways.

Also - a spare transponder on 110 is a good thing.
1) The Olympics are coming up. It would be nice to have the Olympics HD feed on 110 for all existing HD viewers and not burried in the new packages.
2) TPs fail - If something nasty goes wrong an extra TP allows room for shuffling.
3) E10 will be at 110° in 90-120 days - an extra TP allows room for shuffling.

We could see all sorts of amazing things in May and beyond once E-10 is in place. Perhaps even higher resolution HD channels. There is a lot going on this year. I intend to let the folks E* do their job - I'll do my job - and we can all watch.

JL


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

JohnH said:


> The transport stream is DVB-S.


DVB-S is the transmission standard. DVB-S transmits a MPEG2 transport stream.


----------



## navychop (Jul 13, 2005)

Good posts, JL, thanks.

How shall I put this? The AVS poster may be putting things in as dark a viewpoint as possible. :sure: After reading a few of his posts, you begin to see a trend. :crying: Take it with, not a grain of salt, but an entire salt lick.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

ok brainiacs...will my qam headend work in a m-peg4 world?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

E* does have the Q-Box to go inline between the QAM system and the 625 and "other future recievers" but I believe its based on QPSK not 8PSK. Can you get an 8PSK transponder into your QAM system? That would be your answer.

JL


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> E* does have the Q-Box to go inline between the QAM system and the 625 and "other future recievers" but I believe its based on QPSK not 8PSK. Can you get an 8PSK transponder into your QAM system? That would be your answer.
> 
> JL


 I have no idea!



James Long said:


> E* does have the Q-Box to go inline between the QAM system and the 625 and "other future recievers"


I never heard of the q-box?? and I been doing qam since 01.



James Long said:


> 8PSK transponder
> JL


 how big is that....we're six apart now. I think no, I can't use 8psk.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Let's not make three posts when one will do. 

The Q-Box is new ... an adapter that allows the 625 and eventually other receivers to work with QAM feeds (instead of buying QAM specific E* receivers).

I'm not familar with how Dish uses QAM (I hoped you were). 8PSK transponders on satellite are used for HD and MPEG4. QPSK transponders on satellite are used for other channels. QAM is probably dealing only with the QPSK signals.

JL


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> QAM is probably dealing only with the QPSK signals.
> 
> JL


so it wont work on 8psk?

qpsk is correct for existing qam.


----------

