# Its Time for an Only HD Package



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Okay now that there are a lot of HD channels out there, it is about time for Dish to offer an HD Only Package. I think I only ever watch 2, count em, 2 SD channels of my 250. For me an HD only would be perfect. I could get a lot of content:

5 HD Locals
4 HD Premium movie channels
9 HD PPV

Sports in HD
Fox Sports Net
Big 10 Network
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
VS HD​
Voom channels

and then all the rest:
History HD
A&E HD
DISC HD
DISC HD Theatre
HDNET
HDNET Movies
Universal HD
TNT HD

well you know, all the rest. It would be like a package of 50+ channels.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

You're dreaming if you think you'll ever get HD premium movie channels without subscribing separately to their packages.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Not when the movie channels have their whole lineup in HD (like HBO soon). All the more reason to have an HD only package.


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

I assume you think an HD only channel would be cheaper than a package that includes all of the available HD channels and their SD counterparts. But I'm not sure where the savings would come from. There would be no benefit to the programing providers (ESPN, HBO, etc.) to offer Dish a discount for suscribers who take HD only. And most of the channels not currently offering an HD version cost Dish little or nothing to provide. Also, many of the AT100 channels have it in their contracts with dish that they will be available to all subsribers - so contracts would likely have to be renegotiated to offer an HD only package. And of course there are still the fixed costs (tranmission facilities, satellites, hardware, CSR's, etc.) that stay the same regardless of which package a customer chooses. So in the end, it's unlikely that the price of an HD only package would be low enough to entice very many users to give up the dozens (hundreds?) of SD channels.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Also Dish will have(and does have) an HD pack. In order to get it you will have to subscribe to SD . The only change that may happen is that the HD package will go up to $30 or $40 dollars once all the new HD programs come aboard.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Then its time for a new VOOM to arise and start offering HD only content for people who don't want or care for SD channels or feel the need to pay for 250 channels they don't watch.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Is this any different than those of us asking to only pay for what we watch and not have to pay for all the other channels?

I fail to see how HD and SD are any different. You do not want to pay for SD channels that you do not watch. I do not want to pay for SD channels I do not watch.

While I agree that the entire system needs to be overhauled as it's based on a system 30 years old I fail to see why certain channels that offer a higher base resolution are somehow jusitfied in getting what many of us have been asking for years for SD or all the channels.... choice, themes or any "logical" packaging of channels aside from the current setup which is designed to "force" us to pay for more than we want or need.

As more and more SD channels more toward HD eventually the SD feeds will drop. Is not the overall goal to move to all HD? We are in a transition stage right now and I do find it interesting that Dish charges $20 for HD when eventually everything will be nothing but HD even if much of the content is still SD.

D* is actually chaning to a better system in which you pay a much more resonable $10 per month HD fee but then they are placing the HD channels in the proper packages...

IE Both Disovery SD and HD in same package, History SD and HD in same package. Since eventually most will be showing the same content - one in SD and one in HD why pay for the same thing twice?

This is only going to get worse as more and more channels move over to HD. Dish does not seem to have a long term plan or if they do they are keeping it to themselves.

If a station is simulcasting (both SD and HD channels have same content) then why keep the SD channel? Since the distributors can take that higher resolution signal and downconvert it to anything they want then why have both channels at all? Are their two channels? Why not just give Dish, for example, the HD feed and let Dish split it into two channels if it wants (1 for old Mpeg2 and 1 for mpeg4 until all equipment can get mpeg4)

Anyone out there who is into the tech stuff can comment? Do they currently uplink to Dish two separate channels in different resolutions or just one and Dish recodes/resizes the one signal to the different channels?

I wish you the best of luck, however, because if you can get Dish to crack and offer an "only" HD package then maybe we can get them to offer a no-sports package or a sports-only package.

-JB


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> D* is actually chaning to a better system in which you pay a much more resonable $10 per month HD fee but then they are placing the HD channels in the proper packages...
> 
> -JB


Wait until the normal February pricing increases come and see how "much more reasonable" their HD package will be now that they'll have as many channels as E*.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

If I read it correctly, HD Access on D* is $9.99 per month. If you want their tier of “unique HD services” -- HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD, MHD, MGM HD and Smithsonian HD, which don’t have companion standard-definition services, it will be an additional $4.99 per month.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HobbyTalk said:


> If I read it correctly, HD Access on D* is $9.99 per month. If you want their tier of "unique HD services" -- HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD, MHD, MGM HD and Smithsonian HD, which don't have companion standard-definition services, it will be an additional $4.99 per month.


That's what I've been reading too... which would put DirecTV only $5 cheaper than the comparative Dish HD offering... and that figure is about what most of us have figured we are paying for the Voom suite. Only major difference is that Dish only has the all-inclusive $20 pack, while DirecTV has a couple of packages you add together.


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

Doesn't make sense. Unless every channel in the America's top 200 is in HD, why would you want to go and lose 150+ channels for just the benefit of HD? What about the 311 receiver where you can't get HD?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IF E* did an HD only package (similar to DISHFamily, where the channels are picked from all levels) it would probably be a $59.99 package without premiums. Regional Sports and ESPN without all the ESPNs are expensive!


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

HobbyTalk said:


> If I read it correctly, HD Access on D* is $9.99 per month. If you want their tier of "unique HD services" -- HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD, MHD, MGM HD and Smithsonian HD, which don't have companion standard-definition services, it will be an additional $4.99 per month.





HDMe said:


> That's what I've been reading too... which would put DirecTV only $5 cheaper than the comparative Dish HD offering... and that figure is about what most of us have figured we are paying for the Voom suite. Only major difference is that Dish only has the all-inclusive $20 pack, while DirecTV has a couple of packages you add together.


I would like to see E* do something similar, perhaps re-naming the current $20/mo package Dish HD+, which would continue to give you access to the HD simulcast channels included in your basic pack + HD only channels + Voom channels, then also offer Dish HD Access for only $10/mo which you would only receive the HD access channels included in your basic package. This would be more competitive with D*. I do not believe we will ever see an HD only no SD channel package because most of these HD simulcast channels are provided to E* and D* for no additional fee, that first $10 of both of the E* and D* HD plans is actually a technology fee to justify the expense of the extra bandwidth and satellites that HD requires, the other $5 - $10 pays for the HD only channels and all the fees provide extra profit for E* and D*, thats the American way  .


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Let's see, you have a 2+ grand HDTV, a thousand dollar receiver system, 200 buck Harmoney remote, a couple of 100 dollar EHDs, 200 buck DVD recorder, $100+ per month E* fees and who knows what else and we are here *****ing about 5 bucks a month!?!?!?!?! Gesh!


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

I saw on the news the other day where some organization is pushing for government to provide FREE "basic" high speed internet. How about they do the same for television?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tedb3rd said:


> I saw on the news the other day where some organization is pushing for government to provide FREE "basic" high speed internet. How about they do the same for television?


Umm.. it wouldn't be free. It would come from tax dollars... which means we would be paying more taxes... and if people complain now about paying for things they cannot watch... how would people who don't even want satellite or cable TV feel about being taxed to pay for it whether they wanted it or not?


----------



## TiVoPrince (May 10, 2007)

tedb3rd said:


> I saw on the news the other day where some organization is pushing for government to provide FREE "basic" high speed internet. How about they do the same for television?


*Aren't*
analogue and digital brodcast channels already broadcast without charge? Getting a $40.00US cupon for a OTA box is not enough? Perhaps we need to buy folks a new top of the line computer and HDTV display too...


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Umm.. it wouldn't be free. It would come from tax dollars... which means we would be paying more taxes... and if people complain now about paying for things they cannot watch... how would people who don't even want satellite or cable TV feel about being taxed to pay for it whether they wanted it or not?


No kidding. Anyone who believe "free" when it comes to the government doesn't have a clue about how things work. "Oh we need 'free' healthcare". Pulease. Free means everyone pays more taxes. Free means the lazy and illegals get something for free as we hard working folks pay more.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:backtotop ... this isn't the OT!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> Let's see, you have a 2+ grand HDTV, a thousand dollar receiver system, 200 buck Harmoney remote, a couple of 100 dollar EHDs, 200 buck DVD recorder, $100+ per month E* fees and who knows what else and we are here *****ing about 5 bucks a month!?!?!?!?! Gesh!


Here we go again... Just because it's a "small" fee means we should not care.

Thinking like this is prob the reason these companies figure they can add this crap to our bills because no one will care if they rip us off just a tiny tiny bit 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Direct TV charges:

$10 for HD access (assumed to cover the extra HD equipment needed)
$5 for HD only channnels (no SD equal)

All other SD channels as they come on line will be placed in their repsective packages and provided free IE History Channel SD and HD in same package for no extra change.

You do have to pay the $10 extra to get the HD channels (IMHO fair for now until the new equipment, sats etc... is paid for)

You do not have to pay the $5 for the HD only channels (channels that are not a duplicate transmission of an existing SD channel)


Now this is the way Dish needs to do this as more and more SD channels move toward HD. Right now if I want the History channel in HD I have to pay $20 to Dish. With D* it would only cost me the $10 HD fee.

D*'s setup is ready for the future and makes logical sense. Dish's $20 fee is more of a "take them all or you get none" approach.

I expect D* to force Dish to make a change. Yes things can change but competition is a good thing and even though we still have zero competition with programming it's nice to see at least some competition with the distributors.

An HD only package? If you wait long enough that will be the only package 

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

First you say you want all HD in one package then you compare prices that don't include it all?!?!?!

Let's see... people are asking for a HD only package. Isn't that what E* "have-it-all" $20 package is? D* nickel and dimes you to death with a $10 fee... oh yeah, you have to pay $5 more if you want it all?

For those that want it all, E* did not have to lower their price to be more competitive, D* is raising their prices to E* level. Of course D* prices would have been cheaper, they didn't have much HD to offer.

I doubt very few people would change providers for 5 bucks a month...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

D* isn't going to force E* to do anything.  

Anyways, this isn't about the "extra fees" that E* and D* charge for services ... this is about whether or not they will offer a standalone "HD" package. I suppose as outsiders we can play E* and add up the cost of the individual channels and add a technology fee and base subscription fee to GUESS what such a package is worth ... but debating the fees is an old thread.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> D* isn't going to force E* to do anything.
> 
> Anyways, this isn't about the "extra fees" that E* and D* charge for services ... this is about whether or not they will offer a standalone "HD" package. I suppose as outsiders we can play E* and add up the cost of the individual channels and add a technology fee and base subscription fee to GUESS what such a package is worth ... but debating the fees is an old thread.


Debating the structure of future HD now that D* has introduced something that makes a bit more sense is not old IMHO.

It also related to this thread because such a structure would mean that there would be no need for a separate HD package.

I know some people are very happy with the current setup but some people are not.

What troubles me is that it seems that we have a number of people who are happy chiming in on each thread saying people are somehow cheap if they say anything about price structure. I have not seen any of these people questioned by mods.

I have been told several times that my posts say the same thing over and over. I can assure you that I do not visit every thread on some kind of crusade but when the subject is on topic I do chime in. Offering a HD only package is very much a subject near and dear to me as I have always been a huge proponent of being able to pay for only the channels you want.

For sure this thread started on one topic and has branched out to include possible ways to restucture how HD is charged and packaged. How is this off topic? How HD is packaged "is" the subject so I sit here puzzled at how talking about possible HD packaging and fee structures is somehow off topic?

I guess I was taken aback some when I read about fees being an old thrad. What does this mean? Does it mean that we are no longer able to bring them up as we ran out of "fee discussion" points 

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DBSTalk is a topical forum ... the topic of this thread is the desire for an HD only package. We have had the fee rant threads ... we don't need to turn another discussion thread into "I hate fees".

Please discuss the viability of a HD only package - Thank you.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Thank you, it was getting side tracked.

It is doubtful we will see a HD only package for many years to come. The SD version will have to be offered for a long time which means the simulcast HD version will require additional transponders/bandwidth. The programmers don’t care if you are watching the SD or HD version; they want to get paid for it so you wouldn’t save any money with HD only… more so as more and more programmers go to HD. Those that can afford HD hardware should be the ones that pay for this additional bandwidth.

Maybe at some point in the future when HD is the most common format in the home, SD will be an extra charge.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

I say in 5 years everything will be HD just like color TV and Stereo.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Color television broadcasts were introducted in 1954. Color sets first outsold B&W sets in 1972. HDTV did not become publicly available until 1998... it will take many years for HDTV sets to outnumber SD sets. 

The problem I see slowing changeover to full HD programming is that it does not degrade well on SD sets. Color programming degraded perfectly on B&W sets so it didn't matter to those with B&W sets if the programming was in color or not. People that don't care about HD, for the most part, hate letterboxed programming on the 4:3 screen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ssmith10pn said:


> I say in 5 years everything will be HD just like color TV and Stereo.


Besides being overly optimistic... there is some programming that will never be in HD, at least not real HD. Some filmmakers will shoot in SD for a "nostalgic" feel, and old tv/movies shot on tape rather than film will never truly benefit from HD upconverting... so there will always be some market for SD.

Just like some filmmakers still shoot in B&W today for effect/mood.. and many old B&W movies are still great movies to watch and don't need (and shouldn't be) to be in color to enjoy.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Color television broadcasts were introducted in 1954. Color sets first outsold B&W sets in 1972. HDTV did not become publicly available until 1998... it will take many years for HDTV sets to outnumber SD sets.
> 
> The problem I see slowing changeover to full HD programming is that it does not degrade well on SD sets. Color programming degraded perfectly on B&W sets so it didn't matter to those with B&W sets if the programming was in color or not. People that don't care about HD, for the most part, hate letterboxed programming on the 4:3 screen.


Did you mean to use another term such as decode? Degrade means as follows.

v.tr.

1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.
5. To impair in physical structure or function.
6. Geology. To lower or wear by erosion or weathering.
7. To cause (an organic compound) to undergo degradation.

v.intr.

1. To fall below a normal state; deteriorate.
2. To undergo degradation; decompose: a chemical that degrades rapidly.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm not sure what D word would be best ... the idea is describing how good a "new" format signal appears on an "old" format screen.

NTSC color looks pretty good on a black and white TV. The only issues coming when different shades of color become the same shade of grey. But the "conversion" to B&W worked nicely. HDTV on a SDTV set depends on the scaler. There is no direct reception ... since a NTSC tuner cannot tune ATSC in the same way a B&W set can tune color programming. It is all up to the converter box (which may be built into the TV).

So how well does a HD "convert" to SD? It depends on the content. On a channel where they rely heavily on being in HD to get all the content across (HD News comes to mind with their tiny font graphics) converting to SD makes the channel nearly unusable. But not entirely unusable.

I don't want everything to be HD in a few years. There is some stuff on TV that absolutely does not need to be in HD. ED formats will work fine for that content (if not SD). But with HD being the buzzword there will be many providers creating "HD" feeds that are simply upconverts with no improvement in picture other than bandwidth consumed. I don't want to pay more money per month for upconverts!

Which brings us back to the topic of a HD only package ... today on E* that would be 39 national channels (if premiums are included) in HD plus RSNs and PPV. The SD versions of these channels should also be made available (especially RSNs that would be off air when HD games were not available and the rest of the ESPN package channels since it is cheaper to carry all ESPNs than just the two HDs).

Programmers would create their "upconvert" channels (claiming to be HD) just to get carriage in the HD only packages. Would CNN want E* selling a package without their newscast? No! The simple solution is to create an HD channel --- which may or may not be HD on a regular basis --- just to make the cut. The same for The Weather Channel and other channels. No programmer wants to be left out of ANY package.

In the end, that is what is preventing a HD Only package form getting off the ground ... programmers that demand that their channel be available to all subscribers. We MAY see such a package next year (after the key channels have converted) but I would not expect it.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I watch a LOT of HD programming on an SD TV and it looks very good coming out of my ViP211. There is not that much picture loss with letterbox and you get the W - I - D - E screen look.


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

It's an interesting idea. I would only miss a few sports channels, Sci-Fi and HGTV/DIY/etc. I would be willing to pay as much as $60/mo. for this as I watch almost no SD except. Sci-Fi anymore. It would need to include the premiums and the rest of the HD AT250 to be worth $60/mo. Voom, MHD, Disc, ESPN and TNT are not enough. It would be nice to cut my bill in half. However, I'm not nieve enough to think it will happen.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Considiering that the premiums are $50.00 by themselves you ae right it would never happen at $60.00


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

HD looks fine on SD... in fact on a good SD set it looks better than SD.

My issue (LOL I have many *smiles*) is how SD looks on many HD sets. On my "tube" HD it resizes fine but on most LCD's it looks terrible because of the resizing needed. I know some LCD's (and Plasma's) have better resizing circuits than others and yes I know it's much worse on larger screens but we'll be watching SD for a long long time as much older TV (and some newere still) is filmed in SD.

HD looks great on HD and HD looks pretty good on SD but SD on HD - Yuk!

Dish's overcompressed SD on HD is even worse! 

-JB


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Color television broadcasts were introducted in 1954. *Color sets first outsold B&W sets in 1972*. HDTV did not become publicly available until 1998... it will take many years for HDTV sets to outnumber SD sets.


HD sets now outsell SD sets. Yes, what took 18 years while moving from B&W to color has taken some 9 years when moving from SD to HD - mostly helped by flat panels (so its not just the PQ but the form factor).

It doesn't matter how many years it takes for HDTV sets to outnumber SD sets. HD is already the main set in 30% of the homes - who happen to be the most affluent.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

nataraj said:


> who happen to be the most affluent.


Yeah, let's screw the poor people that can't afford an HD TV


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

nataraj said:


> HD sets now outsell SD sets. Yes, what took 18 years while moving from B&W to color has taken some 9 years when moving from SD to HD - mostly helped by flat panels (so its not just the PQ but the form factor).


Form factor is why my 89 year old Dad and 80 year old Mom have not 1 but 2 HD TV's, a 22" Sony LCD in the Master BR and a 32" Toshiba LCD in the Family Room. Both have QAM tuners and both only have the analog tuners connected to analog cable, I keep telling them they should take advantage of the HD buy connecting the digital tuners, and that they could receive the local broadcast channels without renting a box, but my advice seams to go through one ear and out the other. If I lived closer I would hook up the digital tuners for them, oh well.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

Chris Freeland said:


> both only have the analog tuners connected to analog cable...


40 to 50% of HDTVs don't get any HD programming. That will take a while to change ...

In general most providers have ignored / relegated HD to a niche. I bet from next year, most channels will give primacy to HD (and HD viewers).



HobbyTalk said:


> Yeah, let's screw the poor people that can't afford an HD TV


I'd say, if the govt should mandate anything for the poor, that should be health coverage. Not TV. (I know you said that in jest ...)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So .... are you guys saying there is no need for a HD only package or is this just thread drift?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I say it won't happen. One reason not thought of is that the shopping and religious channels are not in HD yet. They would have to include those in any package because they get paid for it.... so it wouldn't be an "HD Only" package then 

And if it did it happen it wouldn't save anyone any money.

Yes, it was thread drift!


----------



## tm22721 (Nov 8, 2002)

tedb3rd said:


> I saw on the news the other day where some organization is pushing for government to provide FREE "basic" high speed internet. How about they do the same for television?


I think it was Ronald Reagan who said "Those who go to bed with government will get more than a good night's sleep".


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Yeah, let's screw the poor people that can't afford an HD TV


Just give it a couple of years.

Actually, Wal-Mart has some pretty affordable lesser models, and Circuit City and Best Buy often have two- or three-years-no-interest specials. That's how I got my two HDTVs.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

How much does Mpeg4 take care of the issue of bandwidth?

Sure they have to add extra pixels to stretch a SD signal to HD but I had thought that Mpeg4 was now good enough to get rid of most of the extra bandwidth inolved.

Anyone?

If this is so they why even have SD channels anymore? As a channel moves to HD then just get rid of the SD version. Feed the HD to the distributors and let them package it however they want. Since they are doing the encoding anyway for retransmission then I fail to see why there is a need to have two feeds of the same material.

Right now the only reason I can see is that Dish still uses Mpeg2 and Mpeg4. Once the old Mpeg2 boxes are gone then everything will be in Mpeg4 and there is no reason to have two feeds IMHO.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SD is good for MPEG2 receivers. Too many out there to just drop the SD versions, even in houses that have one MPEG4 receiver there can be MPEG2 receivers to serve.

BTW: One MPEG4 8PSK HD can take up the same satellite space as two MPEG2 QPSK SD channels ... turning a 622 into a 66 HD hour DVR. Since some of that improvement comes from 8PSK vs QPSK one has to adjust the numbers a little when talking about storage.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> SD is good for MPEG2 receivers. Too many out there to just drop the SD versions, even in houses that have one MPEG4 receiver there can be MPEG2 receivers to serve.
> 
> BTW: One MPEG4 8PSK HD can take up the same satellite space as two MPEG2 QPSK SD channels ... turning a 622 into a 66 HD hour DVR. Since some of that improvement comes from 8PSK vs QPSK one has to adjust the numbers a little when talking about storage.


My question was more specualtion that it would seem that an upconverted SD signal would compress alot more than a true HD signal. I guess it depends on how they upconvert a SD signal. If they just double the same pixels when needed then compressing should result in a stream that is about the same size as the original SD. If they interpolate (sp?) the new pixel then perhaps not.

Any experts out there on compression?

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SD would create a much smaller stream if using the same compression. But at this point in time E* is not using MPEG4 for SD ... and they won't until they no longer wish to serve MPEG2 receivers.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> SD would create a much smaller stream if using the same compression. But at this point in time E* is not using MPEG4 for SD ... and they won't until they no longer wish to serve MPEG2 receivers.


Let's use the example of the History Channel.

Right now they have two identical channels, one SD and one HD.

The SD channel is being sent via Mpeg2 and the HD Mpeg4.

Now does Dish recieve one HD signal from them and then just splits it into two feeds for each type of reciever or do they get two feeds already in the proper format but just not compressed?

Eventually when the switch is made to all Mpeg4 boxes then why even bother with the SD version? This is when the entire pricing format will have to be adjusted.

Let's use myself as an example *smiles*

I have a 622 box but I do not subscribe to HD. Dish is already transmitting the History Channel to me in both Mpeg2 SD and Mpeg4 HD but they tell my box not to allow me to see the HD version because I'm a cheap SOB 

As long as they are still broadcasting both a SD and HD signal they can get away with this but I can envision the day when all boxes are Mpeg4 that they will shut down the Mpeg2 signals to conserve space and then only transmit a single Mpeg4 HD signal to everyone and then their boxes will reformat.

Why bother to waste space on sending two streams once everyone is Mpeg4? You "have" to send the HD signal of course but what would be the point of a SD signal?

Now how do you justify charging more for HD at this point when the only thing stopping you from seeing HD would be your box telling you that even though you are getting a full HD signal that you did not pay extra so you can only see SD?

Yes they can do this but unlike them telling you that you cannot see HBO because you did not pay for it... in this case you are paying to see that channel but not the HD version.

Dish can do anything they want and get away with it (Read: DVR fees LOL) but this would really muddy the water.

After all we are "supposedly" paying an extra $20 a month for HD for two reasons:

1. Some HD channels are not offered in SD versions so you actually are getting more content.

2. A surcharge for upgrading everything to handle HD. This "should" eventually go away once Dish has already paid for all the new equipment. Anyone want to hold their breath on this one? LOL

So in the end (how long this will take is anyones guess) everyone will be getting a Mpeg4 signal on their Mpeg4 HD boxes. Dish will send everyone a HD signal but Dish will instruct their boxes to downsize the HD signal to SD unless you pay $20 for it. I wonder how long a $20 surcharge will be able to stand once everything is in HD?

I agree that not everything needs to be in HD. Heck I love watching old shows and most of them will always be in SD but once everything is in Mpeg4 and no old boxes remain then what? Do you keep a number of SD channels in Mpeg4 just to keep an outdated pricing formula going or do you eventually just bite the bullet Like D* has and set up a new format for the future.

You can say what you want about D* and their promises of channels and whatnot but anyone looking at both pricing formats has to agree that the new one from D* makes a ton more sense than E*'s.

D*

$10 for HD Package that includes HD only channels
All other HD channels (ala History and Discovery Channel with a SD and HD feed showing the same thing) will be places in the same package as the SD version.

E*

$20 for HD Package that includes "most" HD channels

As more and more SD channels move to HD the D* format will natually place them in the same package as they were before. This allows the HD fee to remain $10 because each HD channel as it comes online will be placed in one of three packages instead of having the HD fee pay for all the channels.

D* has a strange setup in that they require the much higher $20 upfront fee but still has set the precident that some channels will not be included in this $20 fee ala National Geographic in which you have to not only pay the $20 but also have the tier 3 package.

Transitions are hard but this could be alot easier if Dish would set up something for the future instead of trying to keep up this silly charade of having the lowest package on paper for advertising purposes but then nickel and diming us to death with so many small fees that we end up paying about the same at D*.

-JB


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

JB,

You're out of date on D*'s HD charges.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Quick answer (without reading all the argument in a long message):
E* receives two feeds from the provider. One in HD and one in SD.
The SD feed is compressed and encoded in MPEG2 and placed on a transponder set for QPSK -- consuming 1/12th or more of the transponder's bandwidth.
The HD feed is compressed and encoded in MPEG4 and placed on a transponder set for 8PSK -- consuming 1/6th or more of the transponder's bandwidth.
Due to capacity issues, most HD feeds are mirrored on two satellites, one at 61.5 and the other at 129 (since the entire nation cannot see either of those satellites - portions of the country can see one, other portions only sees the other).

That SD MPEG2 feed must stay in place until millions of receivers still being sold are replaced with 8PSK/MPEG4 capable units. Or current viewers lose programming.

Eventually (2010 --- 2012 --- 2015 ???) all E* receivers will be 8PSK/MPEG4 and the MPEG2/QPSK stuff can go away. Until then we have the system we have.

There was talk earlier this year of a new "MPEG4 Only" parallel service starting up. On this new service there would be less need for separate SD and HD channels, but for storage space it is nice to have the SD option. SDs on the new system will take up minimal space (possibly 36 or more channels per transponder). Back to the 6:1 ratio we had when HD was first introduced.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Thanks for the info James.

It was my understanding that all boxes now being sold are both Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 even if they were not HD boxes.

If this is not true it seems like every box Dish sends out that does not support Mpeg4 is yet another box that they will have to deal with later.

-JB


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

D* price for all HD channels will be $15.00, they added a new $5 HD only package that includes the HD channels that don't have an SD version.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

For clarity: $9.99 on D* adds HD channels that are upconverts/HD versions. An additional $4.99 adds six Unique HD Services (HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD, MHD and the new MGM HD and Smithsonian HD) for a total of $14.98. Existing HD customers grandfathered.

(I don't want people thinking it is $20 total until it is.  )


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

The "grandfather" promise is until the end of the year.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I'd like a no Judge Show and no reality show package!


----------

