# What's the Latest on the 921?



## kstevens

Title says it all...any updates?


thanks,

Ken


----------



## Raymond Simonian

This forum is in a quagmire. Its filled with 721 software updates and questions. There won't be anything interesting to report until Scott G. gets a 921 to beta test. The 921 was supposed to be in manufacturing now. But it had another apparent set back in software or hardware. I say apparent because there was no reason given for its new projected release date of August or September. The only reason given is it is "not ready yet". If Dish Network has any marketing strategy at this point it is in dire straits. No date has been set for additional HDTV channels. The consumer will ultimately chose alternative means to watch and record HDTV. Cable is quickly offering more HDTV in many parts of the country. Dish is in a very vunerable position and the 921 is the remedy. Without it additional HDTV channels will be of little help.


----------



## Cyclone

I hope that they had enough sense to put a better than 1st generations ATSC tuner chip in it. I also hope that they get PSIP working. My 6000 works, but it leaves some things to be desired.


----------



## Kagato

Open Questions Are:

Will it really have firewire out? (Twice says no, people who were at CES say yes)

It has DVI, so there should be a downres flag, will HD-HBO be flagged to only output 480p?

Other than that, it's anyones guess until Beta.


----------



## Jerry 42

Ray 

I really think you are right.

I posted comments like yours in the general area using the ESPN HD as an example of E* not bringing all the HD that is out there when they claim to be "the leader in HDTV" in their promos. All I got was people defending E* and Charlie. I hope Dish remains in business as I have been using them for six years but with cable upgrading its HD offerings and if News Corp (Fox) gets D* then Dish might go the way of the other Beta - Sony Beta VCRs. I hope not but it could happen.


----------



## tm22721

The business community is backing out of the huge investments required for new technologies like HD and the internet until satellite TV subscription growth resumes (if it ever does).

Many fear that digital cable has sounded the death knell for satellite TV.


----------



## Big D

There is something to be said about the digital cable threat as it relates to satellite providers, re: HDTV. The provider that first sets the tone toward HDTV services will, over the long run, win the bulk of the customers, meaning if my local cable company Comcast beats E* to the punch with a broad range of HDTV channels, new HDTV customers will be signing up with them, not the satellite providers. The reason is simple, cable is already coming into their homes most likely, all they have to do is make a call and have digital and/or HDTV channels added on. And you can bet there will be an incentive provided to do so, can you say 6 months reduced rates? Also I am sure a STB for the digital cable service is going to sound like a lot easier way to go for the average cable customer than what is required by a satellite provider to receive HDTV.

So where does this leave us E* subscribers today? Wishing E* would get their act together on the 921 and a low cost 6000 replacement receiver before to many cable companies roll out their HDTV offerings or many, many potential new subscribers will be lost and that will mean higher rates for us and longer waits for new equipment.

Charlie needs to read the history of the VCR and why everyone has a VHS VCR in their homes today instead of the far superior BetaMax from Sony. I lived through that time frame and owned several early Betas, they could have easily have won the format war, but chose to ignore the facts. E* has a window of opportunity here, a small window, to gain the required mass necessary to make new HDTV subscribers think satellite and not cable when it comes to who they call. Charlie needs to pressure Disney on a fair and long term deal for ESPN HD, he needs to pressure his engineers to get the new HD receivers out as soon as possible, he needs to establish an HD channel tier with as many HD channels as possible and price it to attract the most customers you can and don't try to make the HD tier a profit center right away, just break even and watch how many long term new customers come. Now is the time to strike, not 6-9 months from now when the cable companies are getting all the press about their new HDTV offerings.

Okay, climbing back down from my soapbox.


----------



## Martyva

Current HDTV owners number less that 5% of TV households. Dish may feel it is more important to, at least once, to get it right, instead of rushing into the frey. Remember dealers will have costs on the JVC piece in about three weeks, which means product within 30 days. Also keep in mind that many of the new digital TVs will come with digital tuners. I think the lack of a 1394 in TWICE was a typo, according to literature I received from dish last Wednesday. Remember the MOXI--it's still a future product and I don't here a hue and cry from cable customers for it.


----------



## Kagato

I can see Dish having issues getting the 921 box out. I'm at a loss why there isn't a 6000 replacement yet though. It's not like that FCC deadline just jumped out at them...


----------



## Cyclone

Suposedly the 6000 is going to be the model 811. Sometime next year.


----------



## Jerry 42

BetaMax gave a better picture and was a better machine than VHS. But as BIG D notes Sony did not push their advanage.

Martyva, Dish may feel it has bigger fish to fry than servicing the current and new/growing HDTV set owners. I and several others think they are going to lose big time - see posts in general area were even Scott G says he would consider cable. I think E* believes HD is important or their promos would not push the line "the leader in HDTV". But they need to back that up if they are looking hold and bring in new subs who want to get HDTV for their HDTV sets. 

The people like myself who are trying to make these pionts are hoping that Dish thinks about these points for its own good. 
I do not want my Dish equipment to end up with my BetaMax.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski

Yes I have said I would consider cable. I am no fool (no jokes)  I will go where my money gives me the biggest band for its buck.

Both DBS companies have got to take a long hard look at whats coming down the road, they need to prepare for it now, not wait.

I believe that PVR's are DBS's killer application, I think that the only receivers that should be sold are PVR's. If I wanted a PVR on Cable it would cost me $20 a month for one, not money wisely spent in my book.

HDTV is the other killer application, because like it or not all over the air broadcasts will be in digital format sometime down the road. While not everyone will broadcast in HD they will be Digital.

If I am reading correctly Echostar may have seen the light and is working to prepare for the future, while DirecTV on the other hand has shown nothing on what the future may hold.

Of course with Dish we all may need larger dishes to receive the HD signals in the future, and that may be a problem for a lot of people.


----------



## Jerry 42

I hope Scott is correct, E* may have seen the light. The question is can they work at light speed or will the light pass them by.

Certainly E* can add more HD channels now. Doing that now would show good faith even if they just breakeven at this point. Perhaps they are waiting for the new receivers. But is that wise when the new HD equipment keeps being delayed. 

In my opinion these delays in equipment and adding programing will hurt them.


----------



## normang

The other thing to consider is that while we think HDTV is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there are quite a few people who simply do not care about HDTV. 

I've had people come over and I'd purposely switch to something in HDTV and they noticed the difference, but when asked if they thought they would get an HDTV, they would say its too expensive, or didn't know enough to make a comment one way or another other than nice picture. Some friends, didn't even seem to notice. Specially when its "obvious" ie, watching Discovery HD Theatre. 

So to say that HDTV is going to make or break the future, I think that's premature. As we may recall, HDTV is merely one advantage of moving to a Digital spectrum, broadcasters don't have to give us squat if they don't want to. Specially if it costs them to much to produce on a regular basis or there is no return on investment (more advertising revenue) 

Which means to me the HDTV could remain a niche for some special pay channels and events, and everything else winds up SD or multicast..


----------



## dbronstein

HDTV is definitely the future, it's just still a ways away. The sets are too expensive for most people, and there's not enough programming yet. When the prices come down to the point where the sets aren't much more than regular TVs and most of the channels are available in HD, then it will take off. 

Dennis


----------



## Kagato

Local stations whine about HD, but once their are enough units in channel it allows them to have yet another gimick for sweeps. Sweeps set local ad rates, and unlike national ratings, they are not set electronically. They set people note books. People fill them out at the end of the week. People typically only remember things that stand out. So you need a gimick. HD is a perfect sweeps gimick. And unlike reality based TV it's actually kind'a cool.


----------



## Jerry 42

When we had to switch production to color from B&W it cost a hell of a lot more in today's dollars than HDTV vs standard production does. The increase in license fees we got from the networks covered only part of our color production costs. We did color because - a) it increased ratings and b) it added a lot to the back end sales revenue. B&W shows dropped in asset value. The networks got more ad revenue from the higher ratings so in a short time everyone in production and distribution was a winner 

The same scenario plays here. HDTV increases viewership a/k/a ratings for producers by only a little now but just as importantly it adds back end value were the are real profits are. As for distribution systems (cable or DBS) in a like manner it will increase their customer base and that means money for them. The question is which system will be the leader and get the biggest increase in subs.

My scripted shows are all shot in HD format but we currently protect the fame for 4:3 viewers. Pan & scan only does so much.

So even if some people are not buying a HDTV today what system will they sign up with tomorrow when the do get the HDTV, generally it will be the system with the best established HD offering. Hard for cable or DBS to fight free OTA, so the battle will be between cable and DBS. I think Dish is losing an opportunity by not being the real leader here.


----------



## Guest

I for one am just about sick of hearing Charlie say that "we're going to be the leaders in HD" He's been saying that for years but has done absolutely nothing to back up that statement. Let's examine the track record:

1. E* has only one HD capable receiver currently available (the model 6000), but it has been discontinued for quite some time due to not meeting FCC requirements for HD closed captioning. It is outdated and lacks many of the features of the newer E* receivers such as OpenTV. 

2. There are apparently several new HD capable receivers in the pipeline (the 921, 9000, and 811) but it's anyone's guess as to when they will actually be available and release dates have been continually pushed back with current estimates being December or early '04.

3. The only advantage E* has over D* in available HD programming is Discovery HD which cost $9.99/mo. and requires a $150 8PSK add-on to the 6000 to watch and from all accounts consists mostly of the same shows being repeated over and over. They also offer east and west coast feeds of CBS-HD, but these are only availabe to a select few.

4. D* has and advantage over E* in that they have a single dish solution for HD while E* requires a second dish for HD programming. The also have HDNet and a much wider selection of HD capable receivers (9) most of which have integrated OTA reception and don't require the purchase of a $200 OTA module like the E* model 6000 does.

5. E* had the chance to really get an advantage by carrying ESPN HD when it was launched on 3/30, but Charlie passed on it. There are a lot of potential and current subscribers that are ready to jump to which ever company gets ESPN HD first. Charlie is playing a dangerous game by holding out. If he allows D* to get ESPN HD first, then he could lose a lot of current and future subscribers.

6. E* has another chance to get an advantage by being the first to get an HD capable PVR to market, but they are currently in the process of squandering away that opportunity as well. At the rate things are going, the HD Tivo will likely beat the 921 and 9000 easily.

So, with each passing day, Charlie's pledges of being the leader in HD become more and more hollow. E*s inablility to get a new HD receiver to the market has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Their passing on ESPN HD shows a lack of willingness to pay the price to be the leader. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices and take some chances to be #1, but Charlie just seems to want to play it safe and keep the status quo. It's time to put up or shut up. Quit making empty promises and do something. Add some new channels, release a new receiver, anything.


----------



## Hopper27

In the grand scheme of things, HD is still bleeding edge stuff.

The whole problem is the overall lack of HD content, not the boxes themselves. My Mom has been asking if she should replace her older 36" TV with a new digital TV, I've advised her to hold off because the content just isn't there.

I don't know what the solution is, maybe it will just take time. Other than the gee-wiz factor, digital TV isn't here yet for the vast majority of programming.

For example, where is CNN-HD? Lifetime-HD? The History Channel-HD? HBO-HD? MTV-HD?

Etc. etc. etc...

The boxes are beside the point, the content isn't here yet. 

Jason


----------



## kstevens

Funny, last I checked, HBO HD existed.


Ken


----------



## Kagato

Discovery HD is $7.99/mo and the module is on promo right now for $49. Not that I have any plans of buying either...

When the 6000 came out it was much cheaper than the D* solutions, even with the OTA module, it was cheaper than the D* STBs. For the most part the 6000 was on the low side of the price scale until this year.

That being said, yeah, Dish is not the HD leader. In fact no major company seems to be. Just some smaller local outfits here and there.


----------



## Hopper27

Spending the money to buy a HDTV, all this expensive equipment, etc... to watch three or four channels, seems absurd...

There are hundreds of channels on Dish, and about 1% of them are HD right now.

Until that problem is fixed, when the 921 arrives is rather moot for 99% of subscribers.

Jason


----------



## RAD

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *Spending the money to buy a HDTV, all this expensive equipment, etc... to watch three or four channels, seems absurd...
> *


I get High Definition programming from CBS (OTA and via DISH), NBC, ABC, WGN (WB) and PBS, plus Fox's 480p wide screen material. Many of these channels also have Dobly Digitl 5.1 audio. From Dish I get Discovery-HD, HBO-HD, WCBS-DT, and some special events, like some NBA-TV high defintion games and I could get Showtime-HD if I wanted to. ESPN-HD is on the air now (waiting for Dish and Disney to grow up), HDNet is on DirecTV (Charlie, wake up and offer this) and Bravo and Cinemax are coming out with HD channels this year. Dish also have the demo channel and a PPV-HD channel. So are you can see there are much more then three or four channels available now with more coming.

You can get a HD setup going now for what I paid for a Mist 45" RPTV back in 1983, especially when you figure inflation into the picture.


----------



## tnsprin

...
3. The only advantage E* has over D* in available HD programming is Discovery HD which cost $9.99/mo. and requires a $150 8PSK add-on to the 6000 to watch and from all accounts consists mostly of the same shows being repeated over and over. They also offer east and west coast feeds of CBS-HD, but these are only availabe to a select few.

...

8psk is available throuth 4/30 at $49. I don't know if they still offer it, but they originally offered it free with a years subscription to Discovery HD. It is also currently included if you order a 6000.


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by RAD _
> *
> 
> I get High Definition programming from CBS (OTA and via DISH), NBC, ABC, WGN (WB) and PBS, plus Fox's 480p wide screen material. Many of these channels also have Dobly Digitl 5.1 audio. From Dish I get Discovery-HD, HBO-HD, WCBS-DT, and some special events, like some NBA-TV high defintion games and I could get Showtime-HD if I wanted to. *


Ok... Eight channels... 

That completely misses the point...

Ok, so a few select channels are HD, so you're going to spend at least a thousand bucks to get those half dozen or so channels, plus the cost of a HDTV?

I can easily afford to go out and buy a 921 tomorrow (if it was for sale), and I can afford to spend $2K on a new HDTV if I wanted to.

But why? 95+% of the channels are still in SD, and will be so for some time. Content justifies the hardware, not the other way around.

Jason


----------



## Guest

Why? Programming justifies the hardware, not channel count.


----------



## kstevens

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *
> 
> Ok... Eight channels...
> 
> That completely misses the point...
> 
> Ok, so a few select channels are HD, so you're going to spend at least a thousand bucks to get those half dozen or so channels, plus the cost of a HDTV?
> 
> I can easily afford to go out and buy a 921 tomorrow (if it was for sale), and I can afford to spend $2K on a new HDTV if I wanted to.
> 
> But why? 95+% of the channels are still in SD, and will be so for some time. Content justifies the hardware, not the other way around.
> 
> Jason *


Attitutes like this would have kept us in the stone age 

Ken


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by kstevens _
> *
> 
> Attitutes like this would have kept us in the stone age
> 
> Ken *


Obviouslly my words are not making my point clear...

Allow me to try again...

I'll buy the 921 or something like it, and a nice HDTV, when a reasonable amount of the overall programming is in HD format.

Until then, the gee-wiz factor is too high, the overall value is too low. Most people agree with this point which is why HDTV sales have not picked up yet in any meaningful way.

Jason


----------



## tm22721

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *
> Obviouslly my words are not making my point clear...
> 
> Allow me to try again...
> 
> I'll buy the 921 or something like it, and a nice HDTV, when a reasonable amount of the overall programming is in HD format.
> 
> Until then, the gee-wiz factor is too high, the overall value is too low. Most people agree with this point which is why HDTV sales have not picked up yet in any meaningful way.
> 
> Jason *


The only reason I have an HDTV receiver (and Discovery HD) is that it is the only thing that is watchable on my 106" front projection screen. HD movies are, well, 24 fps and unless they are anamorphic they are not as good as true 16:9 HD video.


----------



## Guest

I have a true High Definition TV (38 inch RCA tube model) that cost me all of 1400 dollars. This investment along with an antenna attached to my chimney enables me to receive the four major networks along with the PBS station, digitally. Discovery, three HDNet channels, HBO, Showtime and ESPN round out the other HD channels that are available non-OTA with Bravo and Cinemax scheduled soon for debut. The content providers are definetely bringing it so the excuse that there is not enough programming to warrant change is beginning to wear a little thin. 

The way that I personally decide which program to watch is simple. Find the high definitikon program of choice and set the tuner there. Ergo, high definition programming dictates my watching habits and not the overwhelming numbers of channels broadcast in SD. I can choose to watch nearly all the primetime shows now in high def, so that is exaclty what I do. I can watch ABC and CBS movies of the week in high def, so that is what I choose. Then there is the coup de gras, namely high profile sporting events in high def which is exactly what I want to see on the tube. In three hours, I am going to turn to CBS and enjoy about 7 hours of college basketball in beautiful 1080i format with DD 5.1 surround. Next week it is the Masters, then the Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, etc. The hook for me was watching the Masters on CBS about 2 years ago, which made it hard for me to endure regular SD programs.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski

If you like the masters you are going to LOVE this next week!

Dish and DirecTV are both covering the USA Neworks Early Masters coverage in HD! Then over the weekend you will see the Masters in HD on CBS.


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by Jabroni _
> *I have a true High Definition TV (38 inch RCA tube model) that cost me all of 1400 dollars.*


*

Yes the prices have indeed gotten cheaper. That logic falls apart when you consider that my current TV works just fine. Spending $1,400 to replace something that already works requires something more than watching "Friends" in HD.




This investment along with an antenna attached to my chimney

Click to expand...

And for those who live in apartments? And your 921 can record those broadcasts?




enables me to receive the four major networks

Click to expand...

Not something I'd want to brag about, but ok, to each his own.

Four channels in HD, you can't record them with your 921, and you get to have yet another antenna on your home.




Discovery, three HDNet channels, HBO, Showtime and ESPN round out the other HD channels that are available non-OTA with Bravo and Cinemax scheduled soon for debut.

Click to expand...

I see, so you get less than 10 HD channels, compared to over 150 SD channels? Don't you see what is wrong with that picture?




The content providers are definetely bringing it so the excuse that there is not enough programming to warrant change is beginning to wear a little thin.

Click to expand...

You think 5% of the channels being in HD is a lot of "content"?

I personally think those waving the flag of HD are wearing thin. HD is here, but it isn't ready for primetime. When about 50% of the channels are HD, then the tide will really begin to turn. Some channels don't matter much, such as TV Land which broadcast old shows anyway.

There is no excuse for channels like FX, CNN, TNN, Disney, MTV, TNT, BBC, SCIFI, etc... to not be in HD.




The way that I personally decide which program to watch is simple. Find the high definitikon program of choice and set the tuner there.

Click to expand...

So you pick your content based on the technology used to deliver it rather than by the quality of the programming?

Oh well, I guess that explains the crap on network TV. 

Jason*


----------



## Martyva

Have you watched HD?


----------



## Guest

Jason,

I am not trying to convince you of the virtues or strengths or superiority of high definition television, merely stating my view as a consumer. I personally am sold on HDTV and since the "big three" are leading the way in this migration, I will follow them. 

I subscribe to Dish Network's America's 150 or whatever it is called and I supposedly get around 150 different channels to choose from. Between me and my family of four, we probably watch ten of them regularly with the missus locked onto TLC and "Trading Spaces"!  Otherwise, the only other stations of value to me are the informational and educational channels. As a consumer, I KNOW what is wrong with that picture. I am paying 62 bucks a month for roughly 10 SD channels. Not exactly a good return on my investment.

What I should do is go back to the way I received programming in the early '90's, namely by using the monster dish and then purchasing the programming ala carte. I remember paying 30 bucks a year for Disney, as an example. But there again, this is simply not an option for the apartment or residential area dwellers.

As far as your comment about 50 percent of programming being available in HD in order to make it ready for primetime, I agree. It is gonna be a slow process, but I am one consumer who has already made the leap and I simply do not have the desire to go back!


----------



## kstevens

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *
> Obviouslly my words are not making my point clear...
> 
> Allow me to try again...
> 
> I'll buy the 921 or something like it, and a nice HDTV, when a reasonable amount of the overall programming is in HD format.
> 
> Until then, the gee-wiz factor is too high, the overall value is too low. Most people agree with this point which is why HDTV sales have not picked up yet in any meaningful way.
> 
> Jason *


This is the classic chicken or the egg dilemma.
Don't buy hd equipment because there is no programming, but on the other hand, why develop programming if there is no audience.
I prefer to live on the edge of technology. It is people like us that keep this planet revolving 

Ken


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by Martyva _
> *Have you watched HD? *


Yes, and it is damm impressive when done well.

That being said, even the best quality video is meaningless if I have to watch Married by America or to get it. 

Jason


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by jabroni _
> Jason,
> 
> I am not trying to convince you of the virtues or strengths or superiority of high definition television, merely stating my view as a consumer. I personally am sold on HDTV and since the "big three" are leading the way in this migration, I will follow them.


You don't have to sell me on the quality of HD. I too am sold on it, but I'm not going to spend $2,500 or more to convert my current TV and 721 to a HDTV and 921 until a great deal more content is in HD.



> I subscribe to Dish Network's America's 150 or whatever it is called and I supposedly get around 150 different channels to choose from. Between me and my family of four, we probably watch ten of them regularly with the missus locked onto TLC and "Trading Spaces"!


Oh, I agree... most people do indeed watch about 10 channels. The key is, everyone watches a different set of 10 channels. 



> I am paying 62 bucks a month for roughly 10 SD channels. Not exactly a good return on my investment.


Why? You understand that you're not going to watch 150+ channels, you're joining to get the 10 channels you really want.



> As far as your comment about 50 percent of programming being available in HD in order to make it ready for primetime, I agree. It is gonna be a slow process, but I am one consumer who has already made the leap and I simply do not have the desire to go back!


You're an early adapter, and that is a good thing, we need those. I used to be one myself, I jumped onto the DVD bandwagon years before most people. I paid $300 each for my pair of DVD players back in 1998. I've put a ton of money being ahead of the game in computers as well.

I'm just sick of dumping a ton of money into being ahead of the masses, only to figure out after the fact that being ahead didn't get me much.

When the price gets down into a more reasonable range, and the content picks up to a more reasonable percentage, then I'll jump on the bandwagon and join the HD world. 

Jason


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by kstevens _
> *This is the classic chicken or the egg dilemma.
> Don't buy hd equipment because there is no programming, but on the other hand, why develop programming if there is no audience.
> 
> Ken *


If the people running the networks and programming providers want to expand the market, they will have to invest in the overall infrastructre to build a market.

Or just have the Government mandate it, which is not a good solution, but it does work sometimes...

Jason


----------



## AkShark

> _Originally posted by kstevens _
> *
> 
> This is the classic chicken or the egg dilemma.
> 
> Ken *


Dilemma? What Dilemma? :shrug:


----------



## Guest

Jason,

Good points all around. The only reason I jumped into the HD foray was peer pressure from a co-worker and the fact that I could get the TV with a built in receiver for 1400 bucks. Otherwise, I would still be watching the programs on my 6 year old, 700 dollar RCA Home Theatre system. 

I could begin to tell you how I jumped into the VCR mix in the early 80's only to opt for Sony's Betamax, but let's not go there. And recently, I took the unit (yes I still have it), to an electronics shop for repair, but they wouldn't touch it. Oh well.............So maybe yer right, wait a little longer for things to shake out and come down in price before buying. The only problem is, the technology constantly changes, ahead of the standards setting organizations. I kinda look at this as a never ending problem. What will be the replacement for the DVD player and will that equipment also have 16 different formats? Sheesh.


----------



## Hopper27

Ahh, Beta-Max... 

I remember that our school had a few of those way back when, I remember watching Star Wars on it the first time, it was on two tapes. 

What will replace the DVD? Nothing, I expect nothing will replace it. Why? By the time DVD needs something new, broadband should have expanded to the point where a physical disk doesn't make much sense. Our PVRs will have expanded into an all-in-one entertainment center that handles everything in the living room. It will store all your music, movies, and handle your TV programming as well. The internal storage will cache the content such that the idea of physically inserting a disk into a drive will seem quaint.

If you're at a friend's house, you just log into your box over the net using your password and poof, you have access to your music and movies anywhere.

I don't want anyone misunderstanding me, I think better quality video, more options, etc. are all better in the long run. I just think that you can be a bit too far ahead of the curve when it comes to the latest technology.

Ultimatly, technology will continue to get more powerful, and generally less expensive. Within 10 years, hard drives will be big enough to store your entire movie collection, within 20 years a $200 hard drive will be able to store every movie in an average BlockBuster video store.

That sort of storage space will change how we see something like a PVR...

Jason


----------



## kstevens

Me thinks you are forgetting blu-ray dvd players. They are now or soon to be available. One disk packs something like 27 gig. Enough to hold one 2 hour high definition movie. Dual layer dics will hold 50 gig, enough for a 4 hour hd movie.

Ken


----------



## tm22721

> Our PVRs will have expanded into an all-in-one entertainment center that handles everything in the living room ... the idea of physically inserting a disk into a drive will seem quaint ... within 20 years a $200 hard drive will be able to store every movie in an average BlockBuster video store.


Digital convergence will force the PVR to morph into a general purpose, multi-terrabyte RAID, centralized media server for the entire home with multiple digital inputs from internet, satellite and cable.


----------



## Kryspy

Hi,

Working in electronics retail up here in Canada what I tell my customers is simple. 

If you're gonna buy a new TV stop looking at that 32" non HD 4:3 and come look at this nice 16:9 set-up. Nine out of ten times they see my point and buy having ben sold on the futre proofing that it gives them. 

People do not necessarily need to second mortgage their homes to go and buy a HD set right now if what they have still works. But if buying a TV right now you are an idiot to not buy a HD TV.

My 2 cents.

Kryspy

P.S. Bell ExpressVU up here in Canada are the satellite leaders in HD at 13 channels by the way.


----------



## ibglowin

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *
> Obviouslly my words are not making my point clear...
> 
> Allow me to try again...
> 
> I'll buy the 921 or something like it, and a nice HDTV, when a reasonable amount of the overall programming is in HD format.
> 
> Until then, the gee-wiz factor is too high, the overall value is too low. Most people agree with this point which is why HDTV sales have not picked up yet in any meaningful way.
> 
> Jason *


Say what......?

HDTV sales are expected to double this year from 2 MILLION sets to 4 MILLION sets (according to CES). If thats not a "meaningful" pick up what is?


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by Kryspy _
> *Hi,
> 
> Working in electronics retail up here in Canada what I tell my customers is simple.
> 
> If you're gonna buy a new TV stop looking at that 32" non HD 4:3 and come look at this nice 16:9 set-up. Nine out of ten times they see my point and buy having ben sold on the futre proofing that it gives them.
> 
> People do not necessarily need to second mortgage their homes to go and buy a HD set right now if what they have still works. But if buying a TV right now you are an idiot to not buy a HD TV.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> Kryspy
> 
> P.S. Bell ExpressVU up here in Canada are the satellite leaders in HD at 13 channels by the way. *


Ok, that I can agree with at this point. If you're in the market now to buy a TV anyway, sure, get HDTV.

If your current TV works just fine, it isn't yet time to replace it.

That is the difference I suppose, my TVs still work good. 

A few more years, and I'll replace them with HDTV, just not ready yet.

Jason


----------



## Ken_F

You can fiind "official" DTV sales predictions right here (PDF document).

Note these numbers are for worldwide sales of DTV televisions, and it includes all televisions that can do 480p or better. About 70% of these figures represent HDTV-capable models, based on current sales. Based on current trends, roughly 9-10% of the HDTV-capable products sold are actually being used for HDTV, but that percentage will obviously increase with higher rates of cable and satellite HDTV adoption (and HD-DVD).


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by ibglowin _
> *
> 
> Say what......?
> 
> HDTV sales are expected to double this year from 2 MILLION sets to 4 MILLION sets (according to CES). If thats not a "meaningful" pick up what is? *


Ok, lets assume they sell 4 million HDTV sets...

There are still about 200 million normal TVs out there, waiting to be replaced. At that pace, it will take decades to replace them.

They need to be selling tens of millions of them to replace enough TVs in the next few years, otherwise this is going to take forever. 

Jason


----------



## Ken_F

Hopper,

Yes, SDTV will be around for a long, long time. It will probably be two decades or more before the majority of U.S. television channels are available in HDTV. But within the next decade, most of the popular channels (TNT, ESPN, ESPN2, History Channel, Sci Fi, CNN, etc) should be available in HDTV versions, and others will probably be available in widescreen 480p.


----------



## tnsprin

Not that I agreed with the FCC decision, but with it in effect all new TVs will start receiving HDTV in a very short time. So they will be selling tens of millions very soon.


----------



## Jacob S

Isn't it only a digital signal that is going to be required, not an HDTV signal? Because there is a difference. Are all the new digital tv's that are coming out that is required to be made by 2007 HDTV compatible?


----------



## Mike123abc

They will be required to receive and decode the signal, but that does not mean that they will display them in high definition. They can be down converted to 480i. The FCC just wants people to be able to see the new channels on any TV so they can take back the old channels to resell.


----------



## matthinz

Hopper27

Actually, the 921 WILL record OTA HD content. The offical 921 thread has the info here on DBSTalk. But hey! If your happy watching DVDs (Your probably still VHS) and sandard tv on your old TV, that's great for you. I recently purchased a Sony 46" HDTV, Klipsch speakers, an Onkyo SR-800 Receiver and SP-500 DVD Player for my bedroom, and I absolutely love them. I almost wonder how I ever watched TV on a 27"! My TV and the rest of my old setup worked just fine too. I decided to upgrade and make it better. I definately think it was worth it. If you don't think that HDTV is the way to go for you, don't. When HDTV finally does take over, there will still be converter boxes you can stick to the back of your TV!


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by matthinz _
> Hopper27
> 
> Actually, the 921 WILL record OTA HD content.


Interesting, that's news to me... That might also be a cause of some of the cost of the unit, because it now needs a compression chip as well as a decompression chip, but perhaps those have gotten cheaper and easier to work with.



> But hey! If your happy watching DVDs (Your probably still VHS) and sandard tv on your old TV, that's great for you.


Watch your assumptions carefully. I already stated in this thread that I was an early adopter of DVDs, spent $300 each on a pair of Toshiba DVD players nearly 5 years old. I own a 36" Toshiba FST Black TV that works perfectly, a pair of Toshiba 6 head VCRs that I hardly use anymore, and a Dish 721 receiver.

My sound comes from a Yamaha Dolby Digital reciever running to some very nice suruound speakers.

I'm happy to spend money when it is worthwhile to do so. I had no problems spending the $500 the 721 PVR cost, and if I could get value for it, I'd have no problems with the $1,000+ cost for the 921.

The problem is, it has little value now, with its features useable by only 5% of the channels out there right now.

Ditto with a new $1,500 36" TV that would replace my already very nice 36" TV.

I've got other things to spend $2,500 on than that, for less than 10 channels.



> I recently purchased a Sony 46" HDTV, Klipsch speakers, an Onkyo SR-800 Receiver and SP-500 DVD Player for my bedroom, and I absolutely love them.


Ok, and if I was in the market to replace my equipment, I would do the same.

The problem is, you replaced old and inferior equipment that probably was ready to be replaced. My equipment is close enough to "new" that it isn't worth tossing out for the minor beneift to be gained.

Of course, anyone in the market today to buy a new TV should get a digital TV, it makes no sense to not do so. But the arguement becomes a lot harder when you're talking about replacing perfectly good equipment.



> I almost wonder how I ever watched TV on a 27"!


I've got a 27" TV in my bedroom. I'd very much like to get a flat panel for there so I can get rid of the stand it sits on right now and free up some space in the room. They just cost too much right now, but hopefully the price will come down in a few years.

If it doesn't, another option is to put the 36" TV in there, but I may not have the space for it. It is nearly twice as deep as the 27" TV is.



> I decided to upgrade and make it better. I definately think it was worth it.


You are making an arguement for HDTV by comparing a 46" TV to a 27" TV.

That is silly.

The REAL question is, would you have replaced the 27" TV with a 27" HDTV?

If the answer is no, then it wasn't the fact that the new TV is HD that was the primary factor, it was just a helper.

Jason


----------



## Ken_F

> Interesting, that's news to me... That might also be a cause of some of the cost of the unit, because it now needs a compression chip as well as a decompression chip, but perhaps those have gotten cheaper and easier to work with.


No compression chip required. It records digital broadcasts from the airwaves. These digital broadcasts are already compressed, just like standard channels and HDTV from Dish Network (of course, HDTV gets a lot more bandwidth, so requires more disk space). The 921 will simply be saving the MPEG2 digital bitstream from an antenna to the hard disk, just like it does for satellite channels. The only difference is the modulation scheme.


----------



## Hopper27

> _Originally posted by Ken_F _
> *No compression chip required. It records digital broadcasts from the airwaves. These digital broadcasts are already compressed, just like standard channels and HDTV from Dish Network (of course, HDTV gets a lot more bandwidth, so requires more disk space). The 921 will simply be saving the MPEG2 digital bitstream from an antenna to the hard disk, just like it does for satellite channels. The only difference is the modulation scheme. *


I do not believe that the signals OTA are MPEG-2 compressed. If they are, then every TV would have to have the power of a DBS box to decode and decompress them.

Uncompressed HD signals would consume far too much storage space, so they would have to be compressed.

If you've got a linky showing what kind of signals are being sent OTA, I'm all ears, but right now, I'm going to have to doubt that one...

Jason


----------



## Guest

> _Originally posted by Hopper27 _
> *
> 
> I do not believe that the signals OTA are MPEG-2 compressed. If they are, then every TV would have to have the power of a DBS box to decode and decompress them.
> 
> Uncompressed HD signals would consume far too much storage space, so they would have to be compressed.
> 
> If you've got a linky showing what kind of signals are being sent OTA, I'm all ears, but right now, I'm going to have to doubt that one...
> 
> Jason *


From http://www.oren.com/knowledge.html


> The ATSC standard uses 8-VSB (8-level Vestigial SideBand) modulation for data transmission. A DTV receiver includes an 8-VSB demodulator for data reception, plus a FEC (Forward Error Correction) circuit to correct for errors in the decoded data arising from signal interference or noise.
> 
> The error corrected data is then segregated into picture information, audio information, and ancillary data. Picture data is decompressed using the MPEG-2 standard, and audio data is decompressed using the AC-3 standard.


----------



## dmodemd

Ok people, give Charlie a chance!

In the works: an affordable HD package
921 HD-PVR

Once this happens, they will be the leader. DirecTV is probably working the package too and relying on HD-Tivo.

The problems right now with the package are:
- Getting all these channels to agree on pricing that totals to a reasonable cost ($9.99 / month or so)
- Working something out with Discovery HD or allowing their contract to run out. Since we are paying $7.99/month now , they must be getting a nice cut that won't fit into the new package. Dish has to either eat it, work it into their profit margin, or put together a new contract with DiscHD. They have to work a new contract anyway once this one expires, so they have leverage with Discovery to say "you charge 7.99 now, once we offer a new pak with more and you arent part of it, people will be dropping you like a rock - get on board or you will be crying later"

Lee


----------



## Ken_F

Hopper,


> I do not believe that the signals OTA are MPEG-2 compressed. If they are, then every TV would have to have the power of a DBS box to decode and decompress them.


They are MPEG-2 compressed, as another poster notes above. However, decompressing hi-definition MPEG-2 signals requires a [email protected] decoder, while the vast majority of set-top boxes use significantly less expensive [email protected] decoders. Over time, as the price of [email protected] decoders fall, you will see more and more boxes incorporate this functionality for downconversion of HDTV channels.

The Dish 721 does use a Broadcom video chipset with [email protected] decoding capability, but Dish didn't include enough memory, so they can't downconvert HDTV signals for typical viewers. The Dish 921 uses the same video and PVR chipset, but it includes much more memory to support HDTV. Decoding / uncompressing HDTV obviously requires more memory than decoding SDTV.


> Uncompressed HD signals would consume far too much storage space, so they would have to be compressed.


Equipment with [email protected] *encoders* costs thousands of dollars, so it will be a long, long time before you see consumer products with the ability to further compress HDTV signals for storage to a hard drive. The dedicated [email protected] encoding chips cost many, many, many times that of the inexpensive [email protected] encoders used in boxes like the Tivo Series2 standalone.


----------



## Ken_F

> - Working something out with Discovery HD or allowing their contract to run out. Since we are paying $7.99/month now , they must be getting a nice cut that won't fit into the new package. Dish has to either eat it, work it into their profit margin, or put together a new contract with DiscHD. They have to work a new contract anyway once this one expires, so they have leverage with Discovery to say "you charge 7.99 now, once we offer a new pak with more and you arent part of it, people will be dropping you like a rock - get on board or you will be crying later"


This isn't an issue. The Discovery contract already provides for a lower cost bundle price. The Discovery Theater (HDTV) contract terms, as reported by several cable and broadcast publications, indicate that cable/dbs companies have two options for delivering Discovery HDTV. One, they can offer it a la carte (as Dish does), and pay Discovery up to 50% of all proceeds from the channel; this means Dish could charge customers $4, and pay Discovery $2, or they can charge customers $7.99 (as they do), and pay Discovery $3.99.

Alternatively, content providers can include Discovery HDTV as part of a channel package, and pay ~$1.00 for the channel. I don't believe its publicly known what the requirements are to obtain the package price, but presumably, Discovery would have to be included with one or more other cable HDTV channels. One of the cable companies is charging $6.99/month for a bundle of ESPN-HD and Discovery Theater, so they are presumably making a profit of about $6.99-($1.00+$0.80) = $5.20/month on that package.


----------



## kelliot

> _Originally posted by Ken_F _
> *
> Equipment with [email protected] encoders costs thousands of dollars, so it will be a long, long time before you see consumer products with the ability to further compress HDTV signals for storage to a hard drive. The dedicated [email protected] encoding chips cost many, many, many times that of the inexpensive [email protected] encoders used in boxes like the Tivo Series2 standalone. *


But this is only because the market is intentionally suppressed to several thousand chips. With Moore's law, the cost could easily drop to the cost of a P4 or less in 6 months given volume. Don't forget, the real cost of these chips is is the NRE associated with the design. In volume, the fabrication costs are actually very low, independent of size.

The suppression is due to copy protection fears.


----------



## BobMurdoch

I LIKE this arrangement. The programmer makes money either way, BUT it doesn't force itself onto all users like YES wants to.

Somebody should send a copy of this to John McCain and tell him this is what he should be pushing for..........


----------



## abospaum

My question that I am asking might have simple answer but maybe not.

I just bought a brand new Sony 57 inch HDTV monitor and have it hooked up to a Dish PVR 501 and the resolution sucks. This is something that I never noticed on a 30" TV but the poorer picture quality is really drawn out. You can see lots of pixelation and lines. This TV is 1080i capable but the resolution is much lower.

Is there anything that can be done to boost the signal other than buy a model 6000 receiver which is already outdated. I am not sure when the 921's are coming out because it keeps getting pushed back.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Kagato

The problem is most TVs comming out these days have fairly basic scalers and the scalers in your average DBS STB is about the same. So going with a Dish 6000 may not do much if anything for you.

You're best bet is hooking the S-video out of your satilite STB to a good stand alone video scaler. If you're TV displays 480P really well, you could go with something like a DVDO. If things are more optimal at 1080i or 720p their are other more expensive products you can try. A good high end AV store will usually let you demo the floor unit at home to see if it makes a difference.

Calibrating your TV doesn't hurt either. Avia or Video Essentials does wonders.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Don't forget that a LOT of the problem is the compression artifacts and pixelation that comes from trying to cram 10 lbs. of fertilizer into a 5 lb. bag.

These problems are no as prevalent in a 30" or smaller set but are REALLY noticeable in a big screen set.


----------



## alv

I had a DVDO before Toshiba turned on the internal line doubler in my set. Not much difference in PQ. Yes there was a little less combing but only a little. No change to the rest of the PQ. Problem is more bits are needed!!


----------



## Kagato

The problem to some extent is the "bits" so to speak. But not 100%. I'll admit, the DVDO is not exactly high end when it comes to video processing/scaling. There is a chance that your TV has something similar to is already, hence little benifit. 

You get into the big name processor and it's a whole new ball game (With a ticket at least $1K).

Sometimes you get lucky with what the TV has built in. I myself have a LCD projector and a 92" screen. A buddy of mine has a Rear Projection set around 50 odd inches. The processor in my gear whomps his everytime.


----------



## RAD

From Skyreport this morning:

The company also pushed its DISH PVR 921, a set-top box unveiled in January that has the capability of recording HD programming, and the new 66-centimeter SuperDISH. 

OK Dish, push a 921 into my receiver rack, I'm all ready to go, when will you be????


----------



## Jacob S

So does this mean that the new SuperDish will be packed into the 921 systems? Could this be the reason why they have delayed the 921, waiting until they are able to get more HD content, seeing not much of a need for this receiver until they are able to get more channels up?


----------



## Raymond Simonian

Jacob S, I have long suspected that marketing issuses such as the availability of HDTV channels had a lot to do with the release of the 921. It would be nice if we can get a firm release date for it by Charlie on May 12.


----------



## Jacob S

I also think that they may not give a release date on the next Charlie Chat this month because the satellite has not been launched yet nor has the new HDTV channels.


----------



## RAD

> _Originally posted by Jacob S _
> *I also think that they may not give a release date on the next Charlie Chat this month because the satellite has not been launched yet nor has the new HDTV channels. *


Excuse me but that the heck does that have to do with releasing the 921 ASAP? Dish has a number of HD channels up now plus I get 5 OTA's that do HD programming + others that do 480i or 480p. I think they'd be making a mistake to hold back so they can get the pent up demand that's out there taken care of now so they'd have plenty of 921's available for all tne new viewers that they probably hope they'll pick up.


----------



## Eyedox

> _Originally posted by Jacob S _
> *I also think that they may not give a release date on the next Charlie Chat this month because the satellite has not been launched yet nor has the new HDTV channels. *


But they are not using 121 degrees for the 3rd satellite as everyone thought ... it is using SES Americom's 105 degree satellite G-4 which is already up and operational.


----------



## RAD

Caught this mention of the 921 at http://www.dishretailer.com/ts2003/

We didn't really hear that much on the 921 as we did at last years Team Summit, but it looks like they are ready to start production which should be available by Christmass 2003. A few people I talked to at Dish said this product might be available by the end of the summer, but you everytime they say they are going to release a new product, especially one with lots of potentially buggy software it takes a few extra months to beta test the systems.

So maybe Christmas now, what a drag.


----------



## Guest

> _Originally posted by Jerry 42 _
> *BetaMax gave a better picture and was a better machine than VHS. But as BIG D notes Sony did not push their advanage. *


Sony pushed thier advantages enough, but was not listening to the users enough. Better quality means more tape per second, an absolute for beta and vhs. Sony pushed better quality, VHS pushed more recording time.

Beta is sometimes called the format that the Superbowl killed. Folks with thier "superior" beta could not record the whole superbowl one year on thier machines, the VHS owners could.

But they eventually won, 8mm video tape is essentially "mini-beta"


----------



## davhol

Speaking of BetaMax, isn't this format (essentially) still being used by professional videographers (television news)? Isn't HDCAM a variant of the Beta format?


----------



## Lyle_JP

Beta died for two reasons.

JVC licensed VHS to anyone that wanted to build a VHS machine at reasonable costs. Sony was greedy about their licensing of Beta, so in the end, only Zenith ponied up Sony's exhorbitant license fees, and without much competition, Beta machines were much more expensive.

Also, the recording length wasn't quite as big a deal as the rather non-consumer friendly way that Beta tapes were named. VHS went by minutes in Standard Play; a T-120 meant 120 minutes of record time. Record time is important to a consumer. Beta tapes were identified by their length in meters; an L-750 was a 750 meter videotape. How many consumers gave a rat's butt how physically long the tape was, unless they planned to break it open and wrap their house in the stuff?


----------



## clapple

Now that Dish has delayed and delayed the 921, I am no longer sure I have any interest. I put my money into Expressvu and get E & W HDTV networks. That ability to time shift has removed a lot of my interest, in the 921.

At the very least, I will probably wait for the Expressvu version. That will at least allow me to record the network HDTV, that our government says I can not have, without the consent of the local broadcasters. The same local broadcasters, that have missed all the deadllines, to provide the programing.


----------



## Ken_F

clapple,

ExpressVu doesn't offer any movie channel comparable to HBO HDTV or Showtime HDTV, nor are they going to offer Discovery or the Hdnets anytime soon (if ever). And ExpressVu will never have ESPN-HD, whereas Dish and DirecTV will both get it eventually--probably later this year.

You are aware that the broadcast networks only offer HDTV primetime? I can see how someone might want to subscribe to ExpressVu for the network HDTV if they can't get it locally, but I hardly see how E*VU could adequately replace Dish Network / DirecTV service.


----------



## clapple

Ken F,

I still have Dish. You're right. Expressvu can't replace it; but as far as what I might want to record, they have the HD network feeds, that I can't get anywhere else.

Some people like to save recorded material. That does not interest me. I would only record when there are two programs on at the same time, or something is on, when I am out of the house. To each there own.


----------



## P Smith

Here is old but technically informative article about chips and capabilities of PVR921: http://www.telecomweb.com/broadband/pressreleases/1042140208-14686.htm


----------

