# MPEG-4 on MPEG-2 receivers? (Not so much)



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

EchoStar's new MPEG-4 compression algorithm to be compatible with MPEG-2 receivers.

In remarks made recently to an industry group, EchoStar's Director of Engineering said that MPEG-4 AVC, the company's soon-to-be-deployed compression algorithm will be "reverse-compatible' with DishNetwork's existing installed base of MPEG-2 receivers. 

It was said that DishNetwork will launch a new product line with MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility, with both HD and SD outputs. He said that Dish will introduce new HD content in MPEG-4 and will launch more local city digital broadcasts in MPEG-4, Dish will also migrate SD content to MPEG-4.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Nick said:


> EchoStar's new MPEG-4 compression algorithm to be compatible with MPEG-2 receivers.
> 
> In remarks made recently to an industry group, EchoStar's Director of Engineering said that MPEG-4 AVC, the company's soon-to-be-deployed compression algorithm will be "reverse-compatible' with DishNetwork's existing installed base of MPEG-2 receivers.
> 
> It was said that DishNetwork will launch a new product line with MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility, with both HD and SD outputs. He said that Dish will introduce new HD content in MPEG-4 and will launch more local city digital broadcasts in MPEG-4, Dish will also migrate SD content to MPEG-4.


How would that work??? If MPEG-2 receivers can process this MPEG-4, what would be the point of MPEG-4 receivers? This does not make sense unless they found a way to software decode MPEG-4 on existing receivers.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Source?


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

Nick,

You're 2nd paragraph doesn't jive with the first. We would need some direct quotes (the source could easily be confused).


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Interesting. I've been wondering how they planned to handle the transisition. Seems really complicated. If you bring out MPEG4 receivers before content, who would buy them. If you bring out MPEG4 content without backward compatability, who could watch it.

Aside from that, I've been excited about getting local HDTV, since I'm in the Chicago market, which will be one of the first, I susupect. Then I got to thinking about it. Our local cable has Chicago HD locals for ABC and NBC. They haven't been able to get permission to carry Chicago FOX in HD and they don't have Chicago CBS in HD either because they can't get permission or because WBBM is still broadcasting a weak signal on channel 3 that gets interference from other Chicago channels. So maybe DISH won't really be able to offer Chicago locals in HD afterall.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Mikey said:


> Source?


From the lips of the director of engineering himself. I personally viewed (watched) his presentation as broadcast on HDNET and recorded it to my new _Scientific-Atlanta _HD DVR.



> I'd like to believe it, but I'm having a REALLY hard time envisioning how it could work. Sounds like another marketing guy promising the moon. I think it's more likely that he means the new (MPEG-4) product line will be backward-compatible with the old MPEG-2 signals.


I understand your skepticism, Mikey, but you must admit, you wouldn't believe "good news" from Dish if it jumped up and bit you on the ass! 

First, the information I have posted comes directly from E*'s director of engineering, not exactly some "marketing guy", as you say. Secondly, I'm passing on what I consider to be "big news" to Dish subs. Whether you choose to believe or not is irrevalent, and whether the compatibility of M-4 with M-2, or vice versa, will work is unrelated to your ability to understand the concept. If the top engineer of E* says it works, how much more of an expert are you to say it won't just because you're admittedly having a "hard time envisioning" how it works?

Edit: Vidcap from the PP presentation added:


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

I'd like to believe it, but I'm having a REALLY hard time envisioning how it could work. Sounds like another marketing guy promising the moon.

I think it's more likely that he means the new (MPEG-4) product line will be backward-compatible with the old MPEG-2 signals.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

I think they mean that mpeg 2 programing can be seen on a mpeg 4 receiver


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

juan ellitinez said:


> I think they mean that mpeg 2 programing can be seen on a mpeg 4 receiver


I tend to agree ... although that is referered to as backward compatability, not "reverse".

There is always the possibility that they have come up with something 'not quite MPEG4' that can be done through software on MPEG2 boxes to improve throughput. But true MPEG4 requires a larger upgrade. It looks like they are talking about the 411 etc more than than upgrading on current boxes.

JL


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

PPT slide clearly states "new product line"..... The words quoted don't jive with the PPT.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Nick said:


> From the lips of the director of engineering himself. I personally viewed (watched) his presentation as broadcast on HDNET and recorded it to my new _Scientific-Atlanta _HD DVR.
> 
> I understand your skepticism, Mikey, but you must admit, you wouldn't believe "good news" from Dish if it jumped up and bit you on the ass!
> 
> ...


Thanks, Nick. That's a great slide. But where does it say that the current receivers can decode MPEG-4?

By the way, I'm not an E* basher. I'd love for it to be true. But I doubt that it is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Back to the top:


Nick said:


> In remarks made recently to an industry group, EchoStar's Director of Engineering said that MPEG-4 AVC, the company's soon-to-be-deployed compression algorithm will be "reverse-compatible' with DishNetwork's existing installed base of MPEG-2 receivers.


Makes me think of the Athalon and Celeron processors ... not quite the full processor but some stripped down version that is not as good. Not full MPEG4 but MPEG4 lite.

"MPEG4 AVC alogrithm works on MPEG2 receivers." I hope that part is right.

JL


----------



## logray (Apr 8, 2005)

DUHHHHH. What do you think E* would do, swap out millions and billions of receivers? At that point we all wouldn't have a choice but to switch to DirectTV.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

logray said:


> DUHHHHH. What do you think E* would do, swap out millions and billions of receivers? At that point we all wouldn't have a choice but to switch to DirectTV.


They'll do exactly what D* is doing. Swap out MPEG-2 receivers for MPEG-4, in phases.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

James Long said:


> Back to the top:Makes me think of the Athalon and Celeron processors ... not quite the full processor but some stripped down version that is not as good. Not full MPEG4 but MPEG4 lite.
> 
> "MPEG4 AVC alogrithm works on MPEG2 receivers." I hope that part is right.
> 
> JL


I really hope they don't try some half-baked software decoding that will let MPEG-2 receivers read the MPEG-4, but not at quite the same level of PQ as a true hardware decoder. This would give Dish an excuse for not upgrading us because we can view the added channels (just not quite as sharp).


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Mikey said:


> They'll do exactly what D* is doing. Swap out MPEG-2 receivers for MPEG-4, in phases.


So E* may have smarter engineers who have figured out how to "blend the fuels, rather than change out the engine in which it is used".

It would be immensely more valuable, to the tune of _hundreds of millions_ of dollars, for Dish to figure out a way to imbed a proprietary codec in the M-4 stream so that _tens of millions_ of existing M-2 recevers could decode the signal, rather than to make new M-4 STB hardware "backward" compatible with an obsolete, soon-to-be-abandoned M-2 compression scheme.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Nick said:


> So E* may have smarter engineers who have figured out how to "blend the fuels, rather than change out the engine in which it is used".
> 
> It would be immensely more valuable, to the tune of _hundreds of millions_ of dollars, for Dish to figure out a way to imbed a proprietary codec in the M-4 stream so that _tens of millions_ of existing M-2 recevers could decode the signal, rather than to make new M-4 STB hardware "backward" compatible with an obsolete, soon-to-be-abandoned M-2 compression scheme.


Actually there is a company that did that several years ago. I forwarded the white sheet to dish. It is technically possible for them to add a chip set to current receivers to decode MPEG4 and MPEG2. An example of its use is red laser high definition DVDs. Instead of swapping out 25 million receivers with 25 million receivers they could add chip sets and work on some type of rotation from existing receivers. Any way you look at it, the process is going too cost Dish and Direct a ton of money. But when survival of the industry is at stake, it is a necessary step.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Means the existing receivers won't hiccup when they see Mpeg4 H.264 in the stream, not that the existing receivers will decode it and make a picture.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2005)

JohnH said:


> Means the existing receivers won't hiccup when they see Mpeg4 H.264 in the stream, not that the existing receivers will decode it and make a picture.


That's the crux of what I'm reading.

And Nick, to put the full faith in E* engineering because they are not marketing is foolish at best. Look what E* engineering has been responsible for; 921, 942 and the L280-281 software updates. Look at how the 811 has lived a less than stellar product life. I'm sure you can think of more engineering faux-pas than this.

To date, the 942 is claimed to be the pinnacle of achievement for E* engineers, and yet it is still experiencing major problems.

The existing MPG-2 receivers will not show the MPG-4 program streams. Bank on it.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

olgeezer said:


> Actually there is a company that did that several years ago. I forwarded the white sheet to dish. It is technically possible for them to add a chip set to current receivers to decode MPEG4 and MPEG2. An example of its use is red laser high definition DVDs. Instead of swapping out 25 million receivers with 25 million receivers they could add chip sets and work on some type of rotation from existing receivers. Any way you look at it, the process is going too cost Dish and Direct a ton of money. But when survival of the industry is at stake, it is a necessary step.


Precisely. In this presentation, Dish also stated that the chipset required to do this is essentially a miniature silicon computer, which, even if the cost could be reduced to only $10, would still cost E* billions to swap out 25 million receivers.


----------



## SummitAdvantageRetailer (Feb 20, 2005)

JohnH said:


> Means the existing receivers won't hiccup when they see Mpeg4 H.264 in the stream, not that the existing receivers will decode it and make a picture.


You'd think. Compatible certainly doesn't necessarly mean capable. But notice the use of words when he says "soon-to-be-deployed compression algorithm will be 'reverse-compatible' with DishNetwork's existing installed base of MPEG-2 receivers" and "launch a new product line with MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility". If you take the first statement and apply it to the second statement, it means that the new MPEG4 signal will be READ by the current MPEG2 receivers. Perhaps the new MPEG4 compression algorithm is MPEG2-hardware friendly by software and requires a new piece of hardware for the MPEG4 receivers to read MPEG4 in full compression. I don't know, I'm not an EE so that's my guess on what's being said.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Nick said:


> So E* may have smarter engineers who have figured out how to "blend the fuels, rather than change out the engine in which it is used".
> 
> It would be immensely more valuable, to the tune of _hundreds of millions_ of dollars, for Dish to figure out a way to imbed a proprietary codec in the M-4 stream so that _tens of millions_ of existing M-2 recevers could decode the signal, rather than to make new M-4 STB hardware "backward" compatible with an obsolete, soon-to-be-abandoned M-2 compression scheme.


The new MPEG-4 receivers WILL be backward-compatible with MPEG-2 because the chipset in the receiver will be backward-compatible. There is no downside to making the new receivers MPEG-2 compatible. 
http://www.broadcom.com/collateral/pb/7411-PB04-R.pdf

Your MPEG-2 chipset in the current receivers has no idea how to decode MPEG-4. What IS feasible is re-cycling the motherboards in the receivers, either with a pin-for-pin replacement of the MPEG-2 chips, or an entirely new motherboard that fits in the same chassis. That way E* could take the MPEG-2 trade-in receivers, retrofit, and send them out as MPEG-4 receivers.

You can't "blend the fuels" in this vehicle without swapping out the carburator.


----------



## rthomp03 (Sep 29, 2005)

What Mikey said. :yesman:


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Very interesting thread indeed. I am also skeptical that Dish could make a MPEG4 stream work on a MPEG-2 decoder. I am also very confident that the MPEG4 receviers will be MPEG2 compatible. This would have to be the case to make a MPEG2 to MPEG4 transition possible unless you plan on creating exact MPEG4 mirror copies of your MPEG2 stream. Huge waste of bandwidth and I am sure they do not plan to do it.

Nick was what the show on HDNET. I would like to record it and hear it from the source. If Dish has successfully done what you mention in your first post, this has huge ramifications for a number of subs hoping for a box swap with MPEG4. 

I am sure there is a lot of skeptism here and I fully understand why. Very interesting indeed....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

What I read here is...

When Dish starts broadcasting MPEG4, current customers with MPEG2-only receivers will not be cut off. They will continue to get all the channels they get today with no interruption.

New channels will be added in MPEG4, and the new receivers required to receive those channels will be both MPEG4 and MPEG2 so that once you are upgraded you will be able to receive all the new channels and all the old ones that are still in MPEG2.

What I didn't read, but have always assumed is...

Once they get all receivers in the field swapped by one method or another, they will eventually cut off all the MPEG2 and only be using MPEG4 across the board for all channels. But during the process of conversion they don't want to lose customers so they will keep both technologies active as long as they can.

Sometimes, telling people too much detailed information when they don't understand how things work anyway, just adds confusion where there didn't have to be any.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

HDMe said:


> What I read here is...
> 
> When Dish starts broadcasting MPEG4, current customers with MPEG2-only receivers will not be cut off. They will continue to get all the channels they get today with no interruption.
> 
> ...


Give that man a cigar! I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Thee is no way current MPEG-2 receivers can process MPEG-4 streams. E* would have to either duplicate programming in both formats (not likely) or offer to swap receivers for those who want to subscribe to the new programming (read: the rest of the "VOOM Originals"). I'm willing to bet that E* will have a special offer that goes something llike this: A free MPEG-4 upgrade with a 1 year comittment to the VOOM originals.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Let me throw another factor into this issue, QPSK versus 8PSK. I believe only the 311, 322, 522, 625, 811, 921 and 942 can deal with 8PSK.


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

If the current receivers could do the MPEG4 they wouldn't have waited this long to crank up the MPEG4 nor would they have come out with the 411. 

I bet the DishNet guys are reading this laughing their .........


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

rocatman said:


> Let me throw another factor into this issue, QPSK versus 8PSK. I believe only the 311, 322, 522, 625, 811, 921 and 942 can deal with 8PSK.


And for non HD receivers, an OTA digital tuner would have to be added.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2005)

olgeezer said:


> And for non HD receivers, an OTA digital tuner would have to be added.


Why? They don't have them now. What is the motivation for E* to do that instead of selling the LiL package?


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

gpflepsen said:


> Why? They don't have them now. What is the motivation for E* to do that instead of selling the LiL package?


Because, you get no OTA guide data without buying the LiL package anyway.

Rasheed


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

The image obviously states that the "NEW PRODUCT LINE" will have MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility. NOWHERE on the PPT image does it refer to existing receivers. How is this news and why is it being discussed. This was known since day 1 of MPEG 4 conversion. They wouldn't build a box that can only decode MPEG4. That would require a decision by the end user...a few HD chans or the SD pack...


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

rasheed said:


> Because, you get no OTA guide data without buying the LiL package anyway.
> 
> Rasheed


not on a 811 you get ota data without buying locals


----------



## unr1 (Jul 16, 2005)

MikeW said:


> The image obviously states that the "NEW PRODUCT LINE" will have MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility. NOWHERE on the PPT image does it refer to existing receivers. How is this news and why is it being discussed.


/thread


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

Nick, all, sorry I am late chiming into this one, I am 7 hours ahead of you in Poland. I was sent an email by E* regarding this thread. I was asked if I could clarify a few things.

I was asked _to clarify that the statement was that the new line of "receivers" introduced with MPEG4 capability would also be reverse compatible with MPEG2. _It was not meant to _say that the MPEG4 "transmissions" were reverse compatible with existing MPEG2 only receivers in the network. _I am also under the impression that _the segment was edited_ for content and length, but it is not known if this contributed to any misunderstandings. 

Regards,
Jason


----------



## Antknee (Oct 13, 2005)

I recently signed up with dish. I called them a few times before signing up to ask questions. Each time I asked if the 942 would be compatible with their new MPEG 4 encoding and I was told yes each time. If it isn't I'm going to be pissed.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Antknee said:


> I recently signed up with dish. I called them a few times before signing up to ask questions. Each time I asked if the 942 would be compatible with their new MPEG 4 encoding and I was told yes each time. If it isn't I'm going to be pissed.


Well, your 942 won't DIE when it sees an MPEG-4 stream. It just won't decode it.


----------



## Antknee (Oct 13, 2005)

Ok, I am preparing to be pissed. Thanks


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Antknee said:


> Ok, I am preparing to be pissed. Thanks


I think the CSR's are playing word games. When you ask if the 942 will be compatible with MPEG-4 they are saying yes because your 942 will still work. It won't get the new channels, but it will be usable (thus "compatible").


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

It always pays to check things out before passing them on. In this case DISH madea rather confusing announcement.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

Nick said:


> Precisely. In this presentation, Dish also stated that the chipset required to do this is essentially a miniature silicon computer, which, even if the cost could be reduced to only $10, would still cost E* billions to swap out 25 million receivers.


$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2005)

TomH said:


> $10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????


$10 for the chip

$25 for shipping to and back

$15 labor for receiver work

(10+25+15)*25x10E6 = 1.25 Billions.


----------



## Antknee (Oct 13, 2005)

Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Antknee said:


> Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)


I think Jason knows something. His E* contacts poo-poo'd the whole concept.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> I really hope they don't try some half-baked software decoding that will let MPEG-2 receivers read the MPEG-4, but not at quite the same level of PQ as a true hardware decoder. This would give Dish an excuse for not upgrading us because we can view the added channels (just not quite as sharp).


What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.

What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?

I suspect that they will transmit in one of the lower HD standards (rem how many HD screen resolutions are supported? that most of the current newer SD sets can view but not 1024i.

I'm a realist and swapping out millions of boxes will cost alot of $$$ and in the end we'll all pay for it either up front or in higher fees.

I support HD tv 100% but what good will spening the extra $$$ do if it forces me to buy new tv's for which I do not have the $$ for right now.

I suspect millions of other people will not be hot at the idea of having to pay for new boxes to see nothing extra until they buy new sets.

If this "half step" (and we are all guessing at this point) gets us a better picture for free then I'm all for it. Little by little as people by new HD sets people will upgrade to the new "real" Mpeg4 boxes. Seems like a win-win to me.

-JB


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2005)

In case you missed it, *This thread is useless. It was started on the wrong premise and is perpetuated even after E* officially debunked it. MPEG-2 Receivers will not display the upcoming MPEG-4 transmission scheme. Nothing to see here, move along.*


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

TomH said:


> $10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????


Yes.

Obviously, the $10 chipset isn't the _only_ cost assocated with designing, manufacturing and rolling out a new IRD. Do your own math. As I wrote that comment, I was actually wondering if someone would overlook the many _other_ costs of producing a new box and come back to challenge me on my statement.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.
> 
> What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?
> 
> -JB


Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???

Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

LtMunst said:


> Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???
> 
> Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....


The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

olgeezer said:


> The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.


At least it's not FRONT PAGE news any more.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I guess I must take some of the responsibility here. I posted a pointer on our home page to this thread but phrased it more as a question rather than official news. Some may have taken it as an official DBSTalk news item which was not the intention. The post on the home page has been removed.

Nick's original post was an interesting one but we were not going to announce it as "verified" until we checked it out ourselves. What you all should know though is that the ideas presented in this thread have actually helped Dish begin to think more about the the MPEG4 transition and ways to make it work easier for everyone. 

So despite whether or not Nick's original post was correct, the thread as a whole has helped.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> It always pays to check things out before passing them on. In this case DISH madea rather confusing announcement.


It wasn't an announcement. it was an EDITED speech from a trade show. Think of it as an advanced Charlie Chat answer. 

Anyways .. thanks Jason and contacts for the clarification.

JL


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???
> 
> Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....


"I" would care and "you" would care but the vast majority of people still do not have HD sets and/or HD boxes and I specualte that those people would not take too kindly to being forced to pay for something they either cannot use or care about.

Current TV's can display a much higher resolution and quality than currently is being used. Most people would be happy with DVD "quality" and although Dish does use that resolution (or near it) the PQ is often not even close to DVD quality due to compression.

MPEG4 will help with this "only" if used to lower the compression instead of adding more channels. Sure our HD channels look good now but that's only because they do not compress the hell out of them. If you think MPEG4 will be used to improve PQ instead of adding HD locals and other HD I have some swamp land to sell you. It's going to be used to add more channels that we all will pay for.

I, for one, want "less" channels at a lower cost. I'm not looking for more. Just let me pick the channels "I" want, deliver them to me with a high quality signal with minimal compression and I will be happy to pay Dish's distribution costs.

Making the three set packages "bigger" and a higher cost to us may be great for the "channel counters" but for the rest of us who only watch a handfull of channels it just means a bigger bill for the same few channels we do watch.

I can get my local channels for free over the air so this does nothing for me.

So the way I see it... I have 1 HD set and an 811. When I want to watch something in HD I watch it on that set. The rest of the time (95% of the time) I watch everything on the 501 and 508 and I'm very happy with those.

This "upgrade" is going to do nothing but cost me alot of $$$. Sure I'll be able to "downconvert" the HD stuff to the SD TV's but what is the point?

I know change is never easy. I know the change to MPEG4 is needed but it does not have to happen overnight.

If I was dish I would upgrade the current HD boxes for a reasonble cost first. People with HD setups are less likely to mind paying for "some" of the upgrade. Leave everyone else alone and just "phase in" the new "duel boxes" for everyone else as the equipment wears out. Once the majority of your customers have the duel boxes you can offer a "can't beat it" price for the remaining customers.

Sure this will mean the conversion will take years but so what?

Most people do not really care if we can see the wrinkles on the reporters face - we watch the news to get the news.

*smiles*

-JB

-JB


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> MPEG4 will help with this "only" if used to lower the compression instead of adding more channels. Sure our HD channels look good now but that's only because they do not compress the hell out of them. If you think MPEG4 will be used to improve PQ instead of adding HD locals and other HD I have some swamp land to sell you. It's going to be used to add more channels that we all will pay for.
> 
> I,
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone on this thread believed the MPEG-4 transition ever meant an increase in PQ. Obviously it is for more channels, hopefully with no LOSS of PQ.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

In the interest of everyone concerned, I am closing this thread.


----------

