# HD Compression - how do they compare?



## bobvick1983

I have a question for those who are knowledgable about compression schemes for HD. Both DirecTV and Dish use MPEG-4 for HD. My question however, is how is Dish Network able to include from 6-8 HD channels per transponder, while DirecTV has about 4 per transponder. I realize that Dish Network uses 8PSK compression technology. Why doesn't DirecTV if that is what makes such a difference. If DirecTV was able to cram just 5 or 6 per transponder, think of all the extra HD they could add. 
This is not to bash Dish or be a DirecTV fan boy, I am just wondering if Dish's HD is not as sharp as DirecTV or if DirecTV has been "left behind" in technology and HD channel count.


----------



## bonscott87

Dish doesn't offer it's HD channels at full resolution, DirecTV does.

And DirecTV isn't "left behind" at all. They have a whole lot more HD sports then Dish will ever dream of and that's what DirecTV markets to. Besides the fact DirecTV added 460K subs last quarter and Dish lost 94K.


----------



## Brandon428

There are literally 1,000,000 threads about this. I have had both Directv and Dish for a while and when it comes to picture quality Directv and Dish looks exactly the same except HBO looks sharper on Dish to me. That is the only difference I have seen. As for the technology of each I can't answer that but I sure someone knowledgeable can answer that. Hope that helps.


----------



## dcowboy7

bobvick1983 said:


> If DirecTV was able to cram just 5 or 6 per transponder


It is basically 5: see charts

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1191863#post1191863


----------



## evan_s

bobvick1983 said:


> I have a question for those who are knowledgable about compression schemes for HD. Both DirecTV and Dish use MPEG-4 for HD. My question however, is how is Dish Network able to include from 6-8 HD channels per transponder, while DirecTV has about 4 per transponder. I realize that Dish Network uses 8PSK compression technology. Why doesn't DirecTV if that is what makes such a difference. If DirecTV was able to cram just 5 or 6 per transponder, think of all the extra HD they could add.
> This is not to bash Dish or be a DirecTV fan boy, I am just wondering if Dish's HD is not as sharp as DirecTV or if DirecTV has been "left behind" in technology and HD channel count.


I don't think anyone outside of DirecTV can tell us for sure but from what I've seen in the past DirecTV uses qpsk for it's national HD channels on the Ka sats and a fairly high error correction rate. It does use 8psk on it's spot beams. The obvious reason why they wouldn't be using 8psk is the same reason they use a higher amount of error correction. It provides a more robust signal more tolerant to noise and errors. To an extent that can be overcome by increasing the power but it may not be in the power budget on the sats. The spots cover a lot smaller area and can be run at higher power for that smaller area. Ka signals also have more attenuation that Ku signals due to atmospheric loss inherently.

DirecTV does service both Hawaii and Alaska with it's main conus beams while most of Dishes sats don't actually reach that far. Dish actually has separate plans for those states and uses larger number of spot beams to cover them beyond just their locals.

The other side of the equation is need. DirecTV has been leading the way in the amount of HD offered and is at the very least still competitive currently all the while providing a more robust signal. Dish on the other hand has had to rely on downrezing the hd and using the more advanced encoding/lower error correction rate and for the most part has been trailing DirecTV. When you have less bandwidth available you have to make sure to use it more efficiently.


----------



## BattleZone

8PSK give you a percentage or two of extra bandwidth, but even across several channels, it isn't a huge difference; certainly not enough to, say, add an additional channel per transponder.

Dish runs more channels per transponder because they downrez 1920x1080 signals to 1440x1080 and use lower bitrates to allow more channels to fit. Back when DirecTV only had a dozen or so MPEG2 HD channels, they had to do much the same thing, downrezzing to 1280x1080 and squeezing 3 MPEG2 channels onto a transponder. This was famously referred to as "HD Lite", a term that has mostly faded away. MPEG2 is much less efficient than MPEG4, which is why 5 full-rez channels can fit on a single TP with MPEG4.


----------



## bobvick1983

So, in short, Dish is actually running a form of "HD Lite" something that I can remember from 2004-2005 that E* fan boys ragged D* about? 
Perhaps E* is not downrezzing as bad as D* was in 04, 05, 06 but they are still downrezzing more than D*?


----------



## dcowboy7

Brandon428 said:


> I have had both Directv and Dish for a while and when it comes to picture quality Directv and Dish looks exactly the same except HBO looks sharper on Dish to me.





BattleZone said:


> Dish runs more channels per transponder because they downrez 1920x1080 signals to 1440x1080 and use lower bitrates to allow more channels to fit.


Them how can they look the same ?


----------



## Brandon428

dcowboy7 said:


> Them how can they look the same ?


Directv's HD used to be noticeably better but since they have added more HD the quality has dropped. Look at both Dish and Directv on the same tv and you won't see a difference.


----------



## BattleZone

Brandon428 said:


> Directv's HD used to be noticeably better but since they have added more HD the quality has dropped. Look at both Dish and Directv on the same tv and you won't see a difference.


DirecTV has not increased their channel-per-transponder count since the first MPEG4 channels were launched, so the fact that they added channels to unused transponder space means nothing.

Many networks have lowered their quality for various reasons (like ABC trying to squeeze an HD subchannel on their main channel), and there are still lots of equipment problems at the networks. Revenue is way down due to the economy, so problems aren't able to be addressed very quickly.

The rest is probably user perception, but from a pure, measured point of view, DirecTV's picture should be better, as they are using higher resolution (on 1080 channels) and a higher bitrate. But if the source signal is bad, you may well not be able to see a difference.


----------



## sigma1914

Brandon428 said:


> Directv's HD used to be noticeably better but since they have added more HD the quality has dropped. Look at both Dish and Directv on the same tv and you won't see a difference.


My neighbor had both for a week while he went from Dish to Directv and we both noticed Directv's PQ was better on his TV using the same input. Dish's HD wasn't bad, but it seemed a bit "cloudy," with noticeable difference.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

It's HD. Unless I could compare them on the same TV I doubt I would be able to tell a difference.

I wonder though; is there any attempt to further enhance what is output?

Or, is it simply a matter of decoding the stream directly to ouput?

Mike


----------



## Aztec Pilot

dcowboy7 said:


> Them how can they look the same ?


Perhaps it is the size and quality of the tv doing the comparison??? On a set smaller than say....50", maybe the difference is not noticeable. On a bigger set, the difference may become apparent.

IMO


----------



## Brandon428

I compared both on a SXRD 60" RPTV. They look the same.


----------



## bonscott87

Brandon428 said:


> I compared both on a SXRD 60" RPTV. They look the same.


That's fine. Some people can tell the difference and some can't.

But the technical facts are that Dish downrezzes their HD channels, but not as much as DirecTV used to in their MPEG2 past.


----------



## Aztec Pilot

bonscott87 said:


> That's fine. Some people can tell the difference and some can't.
> 
> But the technical facts are that Dish downrezzes their HD channels, but not as much as DirecTV used to in their MPEG2 past.





Brandon428 said:


> I compared both on a SXRD 60" RPTV. They look the same.


If you can not tell the difference, then there is no problem Who need "science" to tell them what is better!!!


----------



## Brandon428

It always comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Zellio

Eh, I am one of those types of people who thinks that the actual bitrate is more important that some biased fanboy with bad eyesight, or anyone else who judges...

'Personal preference' is what cavemen called religion before we had science.

Personal preference also had people calling the world flat. You guys want to look like that?


----------



## l8er

Zellio said:


> .... 'Personal preference' is what cavemen called religion before we had science. ....


 Now there's some logic. 

Are you familiar with objectivity and subjectivity?


----------



## inkahauts

Brandon428 said:


> I compared both on a SXRD 60" RPTV. They look the same.


When? A while back, before Dish added as many channels as they have today, they didn't downres their HD.. So it could be you saw it then.. Also, I don't think they downres their locals, since they are on spot beam... They only downres their national channels, as far as I have heard...

And what channels did you actually see? Was it discovery, or food network channel? Something that does everything at high quality? Not all channels do, and as someone else pointed out, if the source is poor for a particular channel, it doesn't matter which provider, its just not going to look good...

By the way, personal preference is an inacurate term IMHO... I'd say, everyone has different eyes, and some people may or may not see the differences, especially if your watching on a small tv, but there is an actual difference... thats not a preference, thats a fact.


----------



## thestaton

I was talking to a friend the other day who has D* and he was saying the picture quality on his end is horrible, and that cable looks better.

IMO he couldn't be more wrong. D* has a damn good picture, and even though FIOS is pushing more bandwidth I still can't see a difference.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

bonscott87 said:


> *Dish doesn't offer it's HD channels at full resolution, DirecTV does*.
> 
> And DirecTV isn't "left behind" at all. They have a whole lot more HD sports then Dish will ever dream of and that's what DirecTV markets to. Besides the fact DirecTV added 460K subs last quarter and Dish lost 94K.


That is not entirely correct. Both DISH AND DIRECTV add additional compression to their HD. DISH simply adds more. 

Out of the big three, only FIOS can say their HD does not contain additional compression.


----------



## Shades228

Hutchinshouse said:


> That is not entirely correct. Both DISH AND DIRECTV add additional compression to their HD. DISH simply adds more.
> 
> Out of the big three, only FIOS can say their HD does not contain additional compression.


Since when is FIOS in the big 3?


----------



## Brandon428

Shades228 said:


> Since when is FIOS in the big 3?


Since FiOS is infinitely better than satellite. Unfortunately it won't even be a choice for most for a long time.


----------



## dcowboy7

Brandon428 said:


> Since FiOS is infinitely better than satellite.


Again FIOS is too cheap & didnt get Sunday Ticket making them NOT infinitely better than satellite.


----------



## MountainMan10

FIOS must be like the virtual reality in the movie "Strange Days". That would be infinitely better than satellite.


----------



## Brandon428

Well then I guess it is.


----------



## Brandon428

dcowboy7 said:


> Again FIOS is too cheap & didnt get Sunday Ticket making them NOT infinitely better than satellite.


Sunday Ticket will be available online. So FiOS technically will have it. No rain fade,better prices especially when bundling Phone and Internet,more freedom to use whatever DVR you want,and a uncompressed signal...infinitely better,I would say yes. Call directv,cancel and tell them your switching to FiOS or FTTH and they won't even bother to try to keep you because they know they can't compete.


----------



## RAD

Brandon428 said:


> Sunday Ticket will be available online. So FiOS technically will have it.


IIRC, having ST via the internet was only if for some reason you couldn't get DireccTV service then you would be able to get it that way.


----------



## MountainMan10

RAD said:


> IIRC, having ST via the internet was only if for some reason you couldn't get DireccTV service then you would be able to get it that way.


Plant a lot of trees...


----------



## LameLefty

Brandon428 said:


> Sunday Ticket will be available online. So FiOS technically will have it. No rain fade,better prices especially when bundling Phone and Internet,more freedom to use whatever DVR you want,and a uncompressed signal...infinitely better,I would say yes. Call directv,cancel and tell them your switching to FiOS or FTTH and they won't even bother to try to keep you because they know they can't compete.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Brandon428

LameLefty said:


> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


I have dish...


----------



## BattleZone

Brandon428 said:


> Since FiOS is infinitely better than satellite. Unfortunately it won't even be a choice for most for a long time.


I don't know about "infinitely" better. The PQ is potentially a little better, though in practice is usually about the same. The receivers aren't as good, though. And, FIOS will never be available to 70% of the US, and of the remaining 30%, it's currently available to less than half of those.


----------



## dcowboy7

Brandon428 said:


> Sunday Ticket will be available online. So FiOS technically will have it.


Theres specific rules that not everyone can get it so there goes that plan out the window & watching on a computer or thru the computer onto tv isnt the same....since your a dish person i guess that why you arent up on the rules.


----------



## LameLefty

Brandon428 said:


> I have dish...


Explains why you don't know a lot about NFL ST (let alone Superfan).


----------



## harmil2

I recently came over to Directv from Dish. I also went from the Dish 622 dvr to the latest Directv DVR according to my excellent installer. When we fired up the new DVR the hd picture was clearly better than on Dish. My tv is an Epson 1080ub projector. My wife even commented that the picture was good before but better now. I have no idea if it is compression techniques or just the DVR models, but I was surprized. I had not expected a better picture, I just wanted the Directv hd programs more than the ones on Dish...especially ABC hd which Dish dropped in my area due to a dispute with Fisher Inc. There is much I like and dislike about both services, but hd picture honors go to Directv with my equipment.


----------



## Brandon428

Jeeez,the fanboyism here is nuts. I had NFLST with SF for years and its nice to have I'm not denying that,but not worth choosing an inferior television provider over unless your a die hard NFL fan.

If you triple bundle your TV,internet and phone with FiOS you could probably still afford to have the Directv family package and get sunday ticket with superfan on the same budget you had with 3 different providers for TV,phone,internet.

I just switched to Dish 3 months ago and the difference in picture quality between dish and directv is not noticeable. Also with FiOS you can use any DVR you want. I don't have FiOS and I can't get it here if I wanted,but you can't be ignorant and say Directv,Dish,or cable is better than fiber optics.

Fiber Optics is a better technology than Satellite.


----------



## dcowboy7

Brandon428 said:


> Fiber Optics is a better technology than Satellite.


So what ? thats like saying water is better for you than beer....but it still doesnt make me wanna drink water.


----------



## Shades228

Brandon428 said:


> .
> 
> Fiber Optics is a better technology than Satellite.


According to that statement you are wrong. You can't make a blanket statement about that and be correct. Obviously fiber is so much better that FIOS is running Fiber to all their broadcasters to get their feed. Oh wait no that's right they use satellite as well.

Both technologies have their uses and their limitations so you must be a "fiber optic fan boy".


----------



## Igor

harmil2 said:


> I recently came over to Directv from Dish. I also went from the Dish 622 dvr to the latest Directv DVR according to my excellent installer. When we fired up the new DVR the hd picture was clearly better than on Dish. My tv is an Epson 1080ub projector. My wife even commented that the picture was good before but better now. I have no idea if it is compression techniques or just the DVR models, but I was surprized. I had not expected a better picture, I just wanted the Directv hd programs more than the ones on Dish...especially ABC hd which Dish dropped in my area due to a dispute with Fisher Inc. There is much I like and dislike about both services, but hd picture honors go to Directv with my equipment.


:bowdown:


----------



## barryb

So what are we talking about here?

D vs D, or those crazy light up things from the 80's?


----------



## barryb

On topic: I have never needed even consider anything but Directv. PQ is great.


----------



## inkahauts

Brandon428 said:


> Jeeez,the fanboyism here is nuts. I had NFLST with SF for years and its nice to have I'm not denying that,but not worth choosing an inferior television provider over unless your a die hard NFL fan.
> 
> If you triple bundle your TV,internet and phone with FiOS you could probably still afford to have the Directv family package and get sunday ticket with superfan on the same budget you had with 3 different providers for TV,phone,internet.
> 
> I just switched to Dish 3 months ago and the difference in picture quality between dish and directv is not noticeable. Also with FiOS you can use any DVR you want. I don't have FiOS and I can't get it here if I wanted,but you can't be ignorant and say Directv,Dish,or cable is better than fiber optics.
> 
> Fiber Optics is a better technology than Satellite.


Then why did you switch providers, if you saw no PQ difference?


----------



## Doug Brott

Brandon428 said:


> Jeeez,the fanboyism here is nuts. I had NFLST with SF for years and its nice to have I'm not denying that,but not worth choosing an inferior television provider over unless your a die hard NFL fan.
> 
> If you triple bundle your TV,internet and phone with FiOS you could probably still afford to have the Directv family package and get sunday ticket with superfan on the same budget you had with 3 different providers for TV,phone,internet.
> 
> I just switched to Dish 3 months ago and the difference in picture quality between dish and directv is not noticeable. Also with FiOS you can use any DVR you want. I don't have FiOS and I can't get it here if I wanted,but you can't be ignorant and say Directv,Dish,or cable is better than fiber optics.
> 
> Fiber Optics is a better technology than Satellite.


I'll pull out the two relevant portions from above ..



> you can't be ignorant and say Directv,Dish,or cable is better than fiber optics


and



> I don't have FiOS and I can't get it here if I wanted


I'd say most definitely in this situation that Satellite and Cable are much better than Fiber. Something you can get has got to be a lot better than something you can't.


----------



## Doug Brott

barryb said:


> On topic: I have never needed even consider anything but Directv. PQ is great.


I'm with you on this one .. I still laugh at Uverse & Comcast for the amount of storage on their DVRs :nono2:


----------



## Brandon428

Shades228 said:


> According to that statement you are wrong. You can't make a blanket statement about that and be correct. Obviously fiber is so much better that FIOS is running Fiber to all their broadcasters to get their feed. Oh wait no that's right they use satellite as well.
> 
> Both technologies have their uses and their limitations so you must be a "fiber optic fan boy".


"According to that statement you are wrong"...that doesn't even make sense. You are the one defending satellite as if were your child. I'm not a fanboy of Fiber Optics,cable,nor satellite. Satellite is a great technology and we need it for a lot of things but when it comes to providing TV,phone,and internet Fiber Optics is better. Fiber Optics is the future. I can't get Fiber Optics where I am at,but I think all of you are missing the point. Whether I can get it or not is irrelevant here and shouldn't be held against FiOS as a technology. Satellite has bandwidth issues where as FiOS does not. FiOS can offer triple bundling same as cable and that's one of the major reasons people still have cable.

If I lived about 15 miles southeast I could get FTTH which would give me

Video: Digital Plus (more than 250 digital and HD channels, access to the Internet via TV, Video On Demand, Pay-Per-View) and All Premium Movie Suites (more than 40 channels) and HD Receiver Rental = $98.09
Internet: Extreme 50 Mbps download and upload = $57.95
Phone: Basic Line, Premium Phone Features Package and Unlimited Long Distance = $43.95

I have VOIP so I would only be paying $156.04 without the Phone option.
Also no contract I can cancel anytime. Uncompressed signal. Option to use any DVR I want Tivo,Moxi,HTPC,etc... Where as with Dish or Directv it would cost me 200+ easily for a comparable setup. Also I would receive true VOD (instantly). Fiber Optics is better. It is what it is.


----------



## Brandon428

inkahauts said:


> Then why did you switch providers, if you saw no PQ difference?


They offered more of the channels that I wanted.


----------



## Brandon428

dcowboy7 said:


> So what ? thats like saying water is better for you than beer....but it still doesnt make me wanna drink water.


I'm not trying to get you to switch,I'm just trying to make the point that Fiber Optics in general is a better technology.


----------



## LameLefty

Brandon428 said:


> I'm not trying to get you to switch,I'm just trying to make the point that Fiber Optics in general is a better technology.


You're clearly not an engineer nor a marketing person. No technology can be objectively "better" than another if that technology is unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers. :nono:


----------



## Reaper

LameLefty said:


> You're clearly not an engineer nor a marketing person. No technology can be objectively "better" than another if that technology is unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers. :nono:


That's idiotic. Technology and availability are too seperate topics, and are not interconnected.

As someone who is a former D* customer and who now has FiOS, I can tell you that FiOS is way better - more HD, better quality HD, vastly superior SD quality, lower overall cost, no rain or snow fade. And these objective facts would not change if I moved out of the FiOS service area.

Down D* fanboy.


----------



## dcowboy7

Brandon428 said:


> I'm just trying to make the point that Fiber Optics in general is a better technology.


But my point is what good is fios fiber optics if i cant get sunday ticket thru it.


----------



## Zellio

l8er said:


> Now there's some logic.
> 
> Are you familiar with objectivity and subjectivity?


When your talking bitrates, mathmatics, and such, no. ANd if I was to make up subjective math, I doubt it would be funny or amusing in any way to people who care about intelligence as well.


----------



## Zellio

Shades228 said:


> According to that statement you are wrong. You can't make a blanket statement about that and be correct. Obviously fiber is so much better that FIOS is running Fiber to all their broadcasters to get their feed. Oh wait no that's right they use satellite as well.
> 
> Both technologies have their uses and their limitations so you must be a "fiber optic fan boy".


Fiber optics is a technology that holds far nmore bandwidth then Satellite or Cable.

Really, you guys should study something besides tv.


----------



## Zellio

Here's the issue you poeple don't seem to understand:

*BITRATE IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. BANDWIDTH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. MATH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.*

Insulting stuff like this proves you are nothing but fanboys.


----------



## Zellio

LameLefty said:


> You're clearly not an engineer nor a marketing person. No technology can be objectively "better" than another if that technology is unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers. :nono:


Well I am in school to be a networking engineer, and my dad was a mechanical engineer, and my grandfather was a systems engineer.

And this **** you guys are going on about is insulting. Did any of you pass 6th grade? Making valid math numbers in subjective... My God.

I have messed with fiber, and it is better. Doesn't matter if I use it or not.

*You guys are insults to engineering. Your an insult to mathemtics.* It's one thing to not know what the hell you blab about, or even to be a fanboy, it's another thing to tell people that *COMPRESSION SCHEMES THAT ARE BASED ABOUT AROUND HOW MUCH BANDWIDTH YOU SEND* is subjective to your fanboy ass.

I'm insulted by your lack of intelligence every time I read this filth.


----------



## jclewter79

Come on guys, the point being made he is I would not matter if verizion fios could wash my car, I can't get it here so it does not matter. I am pretty sure that what LameLefty is trying to tell you is that fios may have a better picture but, their market penetration is so small that they are not a national competitor to either D* or E*. They are a multi-regional cable company that just uses better cable.


----------



## dcowboy7

Zellio said:


> *You guys are insults to engineering. Your an insult to mathemtics.* It's one thing to not know what the hell you blab about, or even to be a fanboy, it's another thing to tell people that *COMPRESSION SCHEMES THAT ARE BASED ABOUT AROUND HOW MUCH BANDWIDTH YOU SEND* is subjective to your fanboy ass.
> 
> I'm insulted by your lack of intelligence every time I read this filth.


Still not getting it.....can u *BOLD MORE STUFF*?

*edit:*


----------



## Brandon428

Reaper said:


> That's idiotic. Technology and availability are too seperate topics, and are not interconnected.
> 
> As someone who is a former D* customer and who now has FiOS, I can tell you that FiOS is way better - more HD, better quality HD, vastly superior SD quality, lower overall cost, no rain or snow fade. And these objective facts would not change if I moved out of the FiOS service area.
> 
> Down D* fanboy.


Amen! Availability has nothing to do with it!


----------



## Brandon428

Just wanted to say I don't mean any offense to anyone with what I have said in this thread. I am enjoying this debate very much.


----------



## jclewter79

Yeah, I am enjoying the debate myself too. I am not a fan of the downtalk though. I have met more than one engineer that was an insult to common sense but, that does not have a thing to do with HD downrezzing.


----------



## bluemoon737

Brandon428 said:


> Amen! Availability has nothing to do with it!


Really? It doesn't? Let me try on my TV...OK, INPUT 1 - DirecTV...pretty darn good HD picture. OK, let me shift to INPUT 2 - FiOS...hmmm, nothing but a black screen. Well, I for one really like the DirecTV picture much better...but that's just my subjective opinion (maybe my TV was overloaded with the FiOS bandwidth?).


----------



## Brandon428

bluemoon737 said:


> Really? It doesn't? Let me try on my TV...OK, INPUT 1 - DirecTV...pretty darn good HD picture. OK, let me shift to INPUT 2 - FiOS...hmmm, nothing but a black screen. Well, I for one really like the DirecTV picture much better...but that's just my subjective opinion (maybe my TV was overloaded with the FiOS bandwidth?).


Wow,genius. Again completely missing the point! Availability has nothing to do when comparing the technical abilities of satellite vs fiber optics! Fiber optics has much more potential than satellite will ever have.


----------



## Zellio

bluemoon737 said:


> Really? It doesn't? Let me try on my TV...OK, INPUT 1 - DirecTV...pretty darn good HD picture. OK, let me shift to INPUT 2 - FiOS...hmmm, nothing but a black screen. Well, I for one really like the DirecTV picture much better...but that's just my subjective opinion (maybe my TV was overloaded with the FiOS bandwidth?).


So if it's not currently available, your tech is the best tech?

So I guess all the new cpus, gpus, sciences, etc., are available only when they show up into your deluded world?

I guess then companies like Intel and Microsoft are NOT working on new projects until they become public?


----------



## Drew2k

You know what guys? There's a Tech Talk form here if you'd like to continue to discuss Fios, but this thread is about compression schemes comparisons between DIRECTV and Dish and the last page of posts focusing on Fios has taken this off-topic.


----------



## bluemoon737

Brandon428 said:


> Wow,genius. Again completely missing the point! Availability has nothing to do when comparing the technical abilities of satellite vs fiber optics! Fiber optics has much more potential than satellite will ever have.


No, my point (and that of others) is that FiOS has ZERO potential for a fairly large part of the country.


----------



## inkahauts

Ok, so here is a question... How much bandwidth is there in one fiber optic cable going into someones home with Fios (that is used for TV only, do not count what they set aside for internet) How about U-Verse? Now, how much bandwidth total does Directv have at its disposal? And how about Dish? After I get those numbers, the next question will be, what are the average number of channels being pumped out for x bandwidth at y compression schemes? The hard part is differentiating sd form hd... but then we can look at compression schemes and see how much of a difference we think it should make vs. what is actually the real difference when it comes to bandwidth usage...


----------



## Doug Brott

Folks let's either get this :backtotop and more civil or it will have to be closed. Thank You.


----------



## veryoldschool

inkahauts said:


> Ok, so here is a question... How much bandwidth is there in one fiber optic cable going into someones home with Fios (that is used for TV only, do not count what they set aside for internet) How about U-Verse? Now, how much bandwidth total does Directv have at its disposal? And how about Dish? After I get those numbers, the next question will be, what are the average number of channels being pumped out for x bandwidth at y compression schemes? The hard part is differentiating sd form hd... but then we can look at compression schemes and see how much of a difference we think it should make vs. what is actually the real difference when it comes to bandwidth usage...


"Broadband fiber" [TV] "caps out" around 900 MHz.
Fiber to the home typically uses three lasers [1320-1550 nm]. One is broadband [TV] one is IP down & the other is IP up.
With the Ka/Ku dish, DirecTV had 6 500 Mhz "blocks" = 3 GHz


----------



## Artwood

I predict this thread will be closed before there are any numerical comparisons.

I think that about says it all.

Fanboys not only rule--they're employed.

Do I get a star for compressing two thoughts onto one word?


----------



## inkahauts

veryoldschool said:


> "Broadband fiber" [TV] "caps out" around 900 MHz.
> Fiber to the home typically uses three lasers [1320-1550 nm]. One is broadband [TV] one is IP down & the other is IP up.
> With the Ka/Ku dish, DirecTV had 6 500 Mhz "blocks" = 3 GHz


So Directv has over three times the bandwidth of Fios... Dose anyone know how much bandwidth Dish has?


----------



## Zellio

That's highly misleading. For one, counting 500 mhz blocks altogether would be like counting all fiber plants together, which would end up with 10 ghz OR MORE.

Not only that buy fiber plants can be upgraded to 100 ghz or more and not have a problem. I believe 100 ghz or so has already been tested? Couldn't find the source.

Also Fios has a LARGE advantage that it has fiber internet.

Here are the REAL stats and not bs:



> This allocation of wavelengths adheres to the ITU-T G.983 standard, also known as APON or BPON. Verizon initially installed slower BPONs but now only installs gigabit PONs (GPON) specified in the ITU-T G.984 standard. These bands and speeds are:
> 
> 1310 nm for upstream data at 155 Mbit/s (1.2 Gbit/s with GPON)
> 1490 nm for downstream data at 622 Mbit/s (2.4 Gbit/s with GPON)
> 1550 nm for RF (non IPTV) video with 870 MHz of bandwidth


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS

This is not as simple as just counting the mhz together. One of the main reasons for that is data is simply ran thru Fiber optics while it's stored on Satellites. 3 times the bandwidth means nothing when it's all stored, and fiber can run it thru at any point.

Considering this and the near infinite capactiy of FIOS bandwidth, you would need to *BLOT OUT THE SUN* with satellites in order to have the capacity of fiber optics to *FIGHT IN THE SHADE* over Fios.


----------



## TigersFanJJ

Doug Brott said:


> Folks let's either get this :backtotop and more civil or it will have to be closed. Thank You.


I vote to close. This thread started out very promising with the discussion of the different compression schemes. It got hijacked on the first page of replies and has since turned into two additional pages of "mine is bigger than yours" and personal attacks on each other.


----------



## harsh

Terrestrial distribution has some distinct advantages. They can use switched digital to offer more programming than the basic layout might seem to facilitate. At the same time they seem to be hogtied by their lack of foresight in (and dependence on) modulation technologies

Terrestrial distribution isn't hobbled by the fact that they pretty much must offer their entire palette of national and international program to the entire continent. Satellite providers offer most all of their international packages to everyone from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon. For E*, that represents something over 150 channels in 28 different languages; more channels than most cable companies have ever contemplated, let alone in different languages.

Both technologies require substantial investments in adding bandwidth and terrestrial suffers mightily from changes in modulation schemes (SDV versus QAM or even different QAM technologies). Terrestrial has been conditioned to believe that only a single pipe can be used while satellite will use whatever means necessary to block convert and switch.

In the end, it simply comes down to what a provider can offer you today. How they do it may influence the choice a little, but if you can't get what you want at a price point that you can afford, it doesn't matter how they go about it.


----------



## harsh

TigersFanJJ said:


> This thread started out very promising with the discussion of the different compression schemes.


Compression schemes can't be discussed because nobody outside of the people that employ them know much of anything about how they are implemented. As far as we the subscribers are concerned, we can only guess at the contents of the _black box_ and for most of us, we can't test our postulations.

There are numerous pre encode and post decode schemes that go into compression that are over and above the fundamental technology and they are all supposed to work in unison. The best we can hope for is to do a side-by-side evaluation on how well each works under the various environmental conditions that we can and cannot control.


----------



## veryoldschool

Zellio said:


> That's highly misleading. For one, counting 500 mhz blocks altogether would be like counting all fiber plants together, which would end up with 10 ghz OR MORE.
> 
> Not only that buy fiber plants can be upgraded to 100 ghz or more and not have a problem. I believe 100 ghz or so has already been tested? Couldn't find the source.
> 
> Also Fios has a LARGE advantage that it has fiber internet.
> 
> Here are the REAL stats and not bs:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
> 
> This is not as simple as just counting the mhz together. One of the main reasons for that is data is simply ran thru Fiber optics while it's stored on Satellites. 3 times the bandwidth means nothing when it's all stored, and fiber can run it thru at any point.
> 
> Considering this and the near infinite capactiy of FIOS bandwidth, you would need to *BLOT OUT THE SUN* with satellites in order to have the capacity of fiber optics to *FIGHT IN THE SHADE* over Fios.


 
Have you worked for a fiber/TV equipment maker? Do you truly understand what's involved?

"The plus" with fiber: you can run multiple wavelengths over the same fiber and the loss is measured in kilometers, instead of per hundred feet, as with copper.
"Broadband" [TV] is about 900 MHz bandwidth, since this is limited by the RF modulators & detectors. It doesn't matter what Laser wavelength is used.
If you want more bandwidth for TV, you add another [4th] laser & demodulator.
"IP" lasers don't demodulate since they're "simply" on/off, so they're running at one frequency [bit-rate]. You can detect on/off much quicker than you can demodulate an RF signal [since it isn't "on/off"]. BTW: using ATSC modulation [19.2 Mb/s per six MHz bandwidth] the broadband is about 2.5 gigabits/sec on the laser/fiber.

Back to DirecTv Ka/Ku feeds:
"My bandwidth" is 6 500 MHz "blocks". These are available to me 100% of the time. Whether DirecTV is using all of them for "my programs" is not the point. "They could" but don't for many reasons.

So: for* FIOS to match DirecTV*, they'd need to use two more broadband lasers [5 lasers total]. When the need arises FIOS can do this cheaper [swapout all of their customer's equipment] than it costs DirecTV to launch one SAT.


----------



## dreadlk

Thats Funny :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
What do you call the "full resolution" that Directv offers? Ans: "HD Lite"



bonscott87 said:


> Dish doesn't offer it's HD channels at full resolution, DirecTV does.
> 
> And DirecTV isn't "left behind" at all. They have a whole lot more HD sports then Dish will ever dream of and that's what DirecTV markets to. Besides the fact DirecTV added 460K subs last quarter and Dish lost 94K.


----------



## veryoldschool

dreadlk said:


> Thats Funny :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> What do you call the "full resolution" that Directv offers? Ans: "HD Lite"


What "date" is this from?
DirecTV HD in the "old days" with Ku only was 720 x 1280 [full res] and 1080 x 1280 [reduced res] on some channels, while other were "full" 1080 x 1920.
Ka MPEG-4 HD is "full" 1080 x 1920. This has been verified from the data being read off the drive.
Once MPEG-4 started being used "HD Lite" became obsolete [in terms of resolution].


----------



## dreadlk

Ok as one of the people who has played with just about all of these systems on the Same TV and with Equipment that can actually tell me what’s going on, let me see if I can put this in perspective.

Q: Dishnetwork VS Directv:

A: Directv has a better picture (hands down) because they use a higher Bit rate than E*and therefore this lessened compression is why they have to put less channels on each transponder. Folks this is not rocket science, if you have a copy of Photoshop on your PC try saving a high quality PNG or Bitmap file as a JPEG. Make a few jpeg “saves” using different Bit Rates (Higher to Lower compression). You will notice that the Picture quality degrades as you increase the Compression at the same time the file size gets smaller and that’s why you can pack more pictures onto a smaller amount of Hard Drive space, the exact same reason why Dishnet can fit more HD channels onto each transponder.


Q: Can You See the Difference:

A: If you have a reasonably good HD TV you will see the difference, the bigger and better the TV is the more you will notice it. On most modern 40" and above Plasma's or LCD TV's the difference will be really obvious to just about anybody who see's them side by side.


Q: DirectvHD VS FIOS HD

A: FIOS is using a leap in Bitrate that is even higher the Dishnet vs Directv, using my above example FIOS is pretty close to looking at the picture in PNG or Bitmap format directly. The only limitation being that FIOS is not broadcasting all the Stations at the Maximum Bitrate that they may have originally come from the source, but they are at maximum for most channels.
FIOS HD picture is once again noticeably better than Directv's HD. This one jumps out at you a lot more than comparing D*to E*


Q) I heard this Bitrate stuff is not all that important.

A) Anybody who tells you that does not have a clue what they are talking about.
If you want to know for yourself, (once again) go into Photoshop and save pictures using different jpeg compression rates while KEEPING the resolution eg (1920x1080) the same on all the saved pictures. Even at the same resolution you will notice a HUGE difference between the most compressed picture and the least compressed picture. That’s because the individual pixels of the picture have had most of their Color and Intensity information removed to make them become a smaller file.


----------



## dreadlk

Its a pitty that you don't seem to have other HD pictures to compare Directv's to. If you did you would realize that Directv is still indeed HD Lite. when compared to real HD.

This kind of argument can get old real quick, it's like trying to convince a Dishnet owner that his HD is not perfect HD. He will always tell you that to his eye's it looks great.

If I ever show you CBS HD at 35 mbs and you compared it with Directv's same national CBS version you would not hesitate to call Directv's "Lite"



veryoldschool said:


> What "date" is this from?
> DirecTV HD in the "old days" with Ku only was 720 x 1280 [full res] and 1080 x 1280 [reduced res] on some channels, while other were "full" 1080 x 1920.
> Ka MPEG-4 HD is "full" 1080 x 1920. This has been verified from the data being read off the drive.
> Once MPEG-4 started being used "HD Lite" became obsolete [in terms of resolution].


----------



## veryoldschool

dreadlk said:


> Its a pitty that you don't seem to have other HD pictures to compare Directv's to. If you did you would realize that Directv is still indeed HD Lite. when compared to real HD.
> If I ever show you CBS HD at 35 mbs and you compared it with Directv's same national CBS version you would not hesitate to call Directv's "Lite"


 For us "mere mortals" OTA MPEG-2 19.2 Mb/s is HD. 35 Mb/s doesn't ever seem to leave the backroom of the broadcast station.
I'm sure Blu-Ray looks great too, but since it isn't broadcast, how can anybody use it as a reference?
What is broadcast to subcribers/users is "the point" isn't it?


----------



## dubber deux

TigersFanJJ said:


> I vote to close.


PLEASE keep this thread unlocked!

I would love to know about the comparison of SD offerings. How do they compare?


----------



## veryoldschool

dubber deux said:


> PLEASE keep this thread unlocked!
> 
> I would love to know about the comparison of SD offerings. How do they compare?


 Don't know about Dish, but DirecTV does reduce resolution down to 480 x 480 for SD and it isn't MPEG-4, so what does work [well] for HD isn't being used.


----------



## dubber deux

veryoldschool said:


> Don't know about Dish, but DirecTV does reduce resolution down to 480 x 480 for SD and it isn't MPEG-4, so what does work [well] for HD isn't being used.


How about FIOS res?

I have SD D* and while the pics aren't super sharp most are pretty decent the only gripe I have had is that a number of channels have incorrect video levels which is much more annoying to me than the compression levels.


----------



## veryoldschool

dubber deux said:


> How about FIOS res?
> 
> I have SD D* and while the pics aren't super sharp most are pretty decent the only gripe I have had is that a number of channels have incorrect video levels which is much more annoying to me than the compression levels.



don't have FIOS
don't know how it fits with this topic "DirecTV vs Dish"


----------



## LameLefty

Zellio said:


> Well I am in school to be a networking engineer, and my dad was a mechanical engineer, and my grandfather was a systems engineer.
> 
> And this **** you guys are going on about is insulting. Did any of you pass 6th grade? Making valid math numbers in subjective... My God.
> 
> I have messed with fiber, and it is better. Doesn't matter if I use it or not.
> 
> *You guys are insults to engineering. Your an insult to mathemtics.* It's one thing to not know what the hell you blab about, or even to be a fanboy, it's another thing to tell people that *COMPRESSION SCHEMES THAT ARE BASED ABOUT AROUND HOW MUCH BANDWIDTH YOU SEND* is subjective to your fanboy ass.
> 
> I'm insulted by your lack of intelligence every time I read this filth.


I'll stack my aerospace engineering degree and spacecraft design experience against your *BOLDFACE* and *ITALICS* insults any day. :lol:

If a technology is completely unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers, it's not objectively better to those potential customers.

Speaking of bandwidth, Verizon's bandwidth in my living room is whatever their CDMA-based cell service can provide. That's it.

Directv's (and Dish's and Comcast's, for that matter) is thus infinitely greater. Putting it in the mathematical terms you seem to be so fond of, you DO recall, don't you, that dividing whatever television service bandwidth IS available by Verizon's big, fat, 0 will, in fact, be infinity.

But of course, you already knew that, right? :lol:


----------



## dreadlk

VOS the problem with your argument is that the first HD that came on the Market was 30MB/s and higher, the first stations I know of included mostly FTA and some Digicipher channels. We also have BluRay which set the Bar even higher. Then came Directv and Dishnet who played around with the Standard HD of the time in order to be able to squeeze more stations on a single transponder.

It's very hard to define both D* and E* as anything other than HD Lite when I compare them to the defacto standards of BluRay and FTA HD feeds.

This kind of half truth stuff has been very prevalent in the last few years, with for example regular Cable etc. not letting the Public know that "Going Digital" was not the same thing as going HD (50% of laymen that I talk to still believe going Digital means going HD) and it continues even now with the notion that 1080P Directv is the same as 1080P BluRay.
It's all about hyping the parts that Fit and ignoring the other parts!



veryoldschool said:


> For us "mere mortals" OTA MPEG-2 19.2 Mb/s is HD. 35 Mb/s doesn't ever seem to leave the backroom of the broadcast station.
> I'm sure Blu-Ray looks great too, but since it isn't broadcast, how can anybody use it as a reference?
> What is broadcast to subcribers/users is "the point" isn't it?


----------



## dreadlk

I certainly don't want to get into the Name calling part of all of this but LameLefty, is your argument solely based on the fact that "If you can't get it, it's not better". I understand your point but you do understand that there are millions of people who can get FIOS and that number is growing.

For those who don't know the History, BUD Installers back in the 90's believed that Directv's "Digital Signal" was a joke because it had so little content, it had a poorer picture and it conked out when it rained. 
Those BUD guys are now all extinct :lol:



LameLefty said:


> I'll stack my aerospace engineering degree and spacecraft design experience against your *BOLDFACE* and *ITALICS* insults any day. :lol:
> 
> If a technology is completely unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers, it's not objectively better to those potential customers.
> 
> Speaking of bandwidth, Verizon's bandwidth in my living room is whatever their CDMA-based cell service can provide. That's it.
> 
> Directv's (and Dish's and Comcast's, for that matter) is thus infinitely greater. Putting it in the mathematical terms you seem to be so fond of, you DO recall, don't you, that dividing whatever television service bandwidth IS available by Verizon's big, fat, 0 will, in fact, be infinity.
> 
> But of course, you already knew that, right? :lol:


----------



## dcowboy7

dreadlk said:


> Ok as one of the people who has played with just about all of these systems on the Same TV and with Equipment that can actually tell me what's going on, let me see if I can put this in perspective.


If on a scale of 1-20 for video with 20 being a bluray....how would u rate:

Bluray = 20
Fios = ?
DirecTV = ?
Dish = ?


----------



## veryoldschool

dreadlk said:


> VOS the problem with your argument is that the first HD that came on the Market was 30MB/s and higher,...


 Guess I need to ask what country you're talking about. The FCC doesn't/hasn't allowed this type of bit-rate in the US to the best of my knowledge.
Was there some pioneer doing HD broadcast other than the ATSC standard?
"My problem" [to the best of my knowledge] is I live in the US. 
Japanese or European offerings really don't do me much good.
Not to argue, but please give some information/link to anything other than the ATSC allowed to be broadcast here [in the US] and I will change "my reference" as to what HD TV is. Otherwise bitrates higher than 19.2 Mb/s don't mean squat.


----------



## inkahauts

dreadlk said:


> Its a pitty that you don't seem to have other HD pictures to compare Directv's to. If you did you would realize that Directv is still indeed HD Lite. when compared to real HD.
> 
> This kind of argument can get old real quick, it's like trying to convince a Dishnet owner that his HD is not perfect HD. He will always tell you that to his eye's it looks great.
> 
> If I ever show you CBS HD at 35 mbs and you compared it with Directv's same national CBS version you would not hesitate to call Directv's "Lite"


No one ever sees anything in this country in public, now or ever, at that kind of bitrate unless its on blueray (or you have a hard drive with something on it like I do ).. so thats an invalid argument.. Real HD, as broadcast, is 19mbs bitrate 1080X1920i resolution (or 720p, or higher for either), at MPEG-2, and everything else should be compared to that baseline standard. Can it be better, yes (I wish it was all 1080P 40mbits at minimum), but it doesn't need to be to be true HD.

If one really pays attention, its not Directv that has dumbed down the bitrates and resoultuions of the network stations, its the stations, by adding multiple sub channels and eating into their own bandwidth from the main channels, and not sending Directv the original full bitrate feeds from in house... Blaming that on Directv is like saying I caused the civil war in the 1800's... Or that Directv hates puppys.. its, illogical.

I have OTA and Directv, and have seen my locals on Dish as well, and sometimes, on paticular channels, all three look identical (since Directv went to MPEG-4 here in LA), other times, depending on the station and time, Directv looks far superior to Dish, but I have never seen DIrectv look inferior to my locals via OTA since they went MPEG-4... And I'm one picky SOB.... However, I can tell you almost nothing from any of my locals, at anytime looks as good as some of the Discovery channels, or as good as some unbroadcast programing I have on a hard drive that I connect up and watch.. Blame needs to be placed where blame is due, for locals especially.. On the networks (both OTA and cable)... When you start saying Direct 's HD is not up to snuff, because it is, for HD. SD is a whole other issue, and at this point, Directv has mucked it up so bad, there is no point in trying to fix it.. Just move everything to HD as fast as you can.. Even SD programs look far better being run though MPEG-4 HD encoders.. watchable, rather than unwatchable for me... I'm guessing 7 years or so to make it all happen.

Directv is not HD lite as that term is widely accepted to be a way of stating they are not pushing through full pixel resoultion that they are recieveing, which they are doing.. As for bitrate, the most difficult thing about that is that how they compress something alters the bitrate, and you can have a lower bitrate in one scheme that produces a higer picture quality than a higher bitrate from another compression scheme.. Just look at MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4 to see that reality.

Do not misinterprut what I am saying to not mean bitrate is important.. Resolution and compression schemes held equall, bitrate is the most important factor in PQ, I do not disagre with that in any way... ( I always bot Superbit movies on dvd when I could) I wish all things where broadcast at 40mbs... But the original point of this whoole thread is, whos compression is better (I think thats the point anyway.. Not sure anymore) and when you use different compression scheems, you can't simply talk about bitrate being the decideding factor, because it is only one of several variables that will interact together to affect the outcome of the PQ as well as the bitrate.

There is no question that you will loose some ability to see detail if you do not broadcast the full pixel resolution that you are handed, and bitrate can not over come that, period... So if Dish uses less resolution, as they are at the moment, no bitrate will overcome the loss of detail in the picture in comparison to Directv. I have no doubt that Fios pushes full resolution through just as Directv does with HD, and I imagine that Fios also pushes through full res on SD, which is why their sd is generally better...

One additional note for the SD issue.. All sd looks bad on any big (50+ inches) HD TV that is a fixed pixel display... period... The better the tv, the less bad it will look, but it still won't look anywhere near as good as a old analogue CRT tv (even a 60 incher), period, so If you don't have one of those, complaining about sd quality from any provider is only half the issue, the other half is your tv...


----------



## veryoldschool

inkahauts said:


> And I'm one picky SOB.... However, I can tell you almost nothing from any of my locals, at anytime looks as good as some of the Discovery channels...


 I'd add in some of the PBS HD programs. They're a "knockout", just like Planet Earth is.


----------



## inkahauts

Zellio said:


> That's highly misleading. For one, counting 500 mhz blocks altogether would be like counting all fiber plants together, which would end up with 10 ghz OR MORE.
> 
> Not only that buy fiber plants can be upgraded to 100 ghz or more and not have a problem. I believe 100 ghz or so has already been tested? Couldn't find the source.
> 
> Also Fios has a LARGE advantage that it has fiber internet.
> 
> Here are the REAL stats and not bs:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
> 
> This is not as simple as just counting the mhz together. One of the main reasons for that is data is simply ran thru Fiber optics while it's stored on Satellites. 3 times the bandwidth means nothing when it's all stored, and fiber can run it thru at any point.
> 
> Considering this and the near infinite capactiy of FIOS bandwidth, you would need to *BLOT OUT THE SUN* with satellites in order to have the capacity of fiber optics to *FIGHT IN THE SHADE* over Fios.


Uh, where do I start.. The question was, whow much bandwidth do they have entering your home? Therefore, thats what matters, because that bandwidth is where they have to fit all their channels into to get to you. I assume your not talkign about switched video system that Cable uses.. If so, then we have to add more bandwidth to Fios, basically, find the smallest point in the chain rather than at the home, which most likely is going to be the combined maximum amount of bandwidth used by all the broadcasters that are sending their signals to Fios at any given time, assuming that Fios doesn't touch those signals in any way, which I don't believe they do. Then we will have an accurate amount of bandwidth that Fios uses to broadcast all their channels to homes to compare it with Directv and Dish.

Your point about Fiber plants, ah, I didn't ask for every piece of bandwidth that Directv has, or else its way more than double the number on the board, when you add in all the backhaul, and capturing channels from broadcaster that send their signals via sat, so again, not relevant. And no matter what they can do, the question remains, what is actually present going into the house today. This is not a thread about theoretics of technologies, cause then it would never end, and I'd be talking about the company thats going to launch a bunch of sats to capture solar energy in space, beam it down to earth, and then sell it to PG&E.. (no, I'm not making that up, and its cool)

Also, again, internet bandwidth is specifically excluded, because they don't use that bandwidth for pumping out TV stations.

Now, why its not misleading is, Directv is sending down programing to all people through that bandwidth all at the same time. Period. And what are you talking about stored? Nothing sits on a sat, its bounced off sats to customers homes and through those dishes to their receivers.. Where are you getting this?

Your arguments in that post are seemingly meaningless in the context of this thread, because again, just because it could happen, doesn't mean it is, and this thread is all about whats current, not what could be down the road.. Fios offers no advantages in PQ that I have seen, since I only care about HD, and I have seen FIOS in action, at it is very nice.. Way better than regular cable... But their DVRS make me gag... OT.. HOW can you come out with the latest and greatest in transition and distribution systems, and use old crap that the oldest provider in the world uses as your final interface with your customers? Hello!!!!!)


----------



## inkahauts

veryoldschool said:


> I'd add in some of the PBS HD programs. They're a "knockout", just like Planet Earth is.


Oh yeah, thats true, PBS has had some great stuff as well... However, lately, they have been providing my area with a ridiculous amount of sub channels, and its not what it used to be. I actually have to say, I'm disappointed in their quality as of late in comparison to what it was the day they launched in LA. I remember those shows, and they where jaw dropping.


----------



## inkahauts

dreadlk said:


> Ok as one of the people who has played with just about all of these systems on the Same TV and with Equipment that can actually tell me what's going on, let me see if I can put this in perspective.
> 
> Q: Dishnetwork VS Directv:
> 
> A: Directv has a better picture (hands down) because they use a higher Bit rate than E*and therefore this lessened compression is why they have to put less channels on each transponder. Folks this is not rocket science, if you have a copy of Photoshop on your PC try saving a high quality PNG or Bitmap file as a JPEG. Make a few jpeg "saves" using different Bit Rates (Higher to Lower compression). You will notice that the Picture quality degrades as you increase the Compression at the same time the file size gets smaller and that's why you can pack more pictures onto a smaller amount of Hard Drive space, the exact same reason why Dishnet can fit more HD channels onto each transponder.
> 
> Q: Can You See the Difference:
> 
> A: If you have a reasonably good HD TV you will see the difference, the bigger and better the TV is the more you will notice it. On most modern 40" and above Plasma's or LCD TV's the difference will be really obvious to just about anybody who see's them side by side.
> 
> Q: DirectvHD VS FIOS HD
> 
> A: FIOS is using a leap in Bitrate that is even higher the Dishnet vs Directv, using my above example FIOS is pretty close to looking at the picture in PNG or Bitmap format directly. The only limitation being that FIOS is not broadcasting all the Stations at the Maximum Bitrate that they may have originally come from the source, but they are at maximum for most channels.
> FIOS HD picture is once again noticeably better than Directv's HD. This one jumps out at you a lot more than comparing D*to E*
> 
> Q) I heard this Bitrate stuff is not all that important.
> 
> A) Anybody who tells you that does not have a clue what they are talking about.
> If you want to know for yourself, (once again) go into Photoshop and save pictures using different jpeg compression rates while KEEPING the resolution eg (1920x1080) the same on all the saved pictures. Even at the same resolution you will notice a HUGE difference between the most compressed picture and the least compressed picture. That's because the individual pixels of the picture have had most of their Color and Intensity information removed to make them become a smaller file.


Bit rate is very important, but I haven't seen anything that shows that Dish's is bit rate as well as resolution is less than Directv's. I have only heard about their resolution being less.. Please, what is your source? That is very interesting info...

Also, Please tell me where you found out that Directv is using less than the bit rate that is being given to them. This is not a simple thing, because if they convert MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 then the bit rate is going to be less no matter what due to the different schemes, however lower bitrates between schemes do not equate to down grading the bitrate from the source. I just want to know how you know that either of these providers are downgrading what they receive in terms of bit rates for HD programing. Its obvious they do it for SD, but I have never seen anything to prove they do it for HD. And I have seen Fios.. Fantastic picture.. Every bit as good as Directv, no question there... But I have never seen a program in HD that looks better on Fios than Directv.


----------



## inkahauts

dreadlk said:


> VOS the problem with your argument is that the first HD that came on the Market was 30MB/s and higher, the first stations I know of included mostly FTA and some Digicipher channels. We also have BluRay which set the Bar even higher. Then came Directv and Dishnet who played around with the Standard HD of the time in order to be able to squeeze more stations on a single transponder.
> 
> It's very hard to define both D* and E* as anything other than HD Lite when I compare them to the defacto standards of BluRay and FTA HD feeds.
> 
> This kind of half truth stuff has been very prevalent in the last few years, with for example regular Cable etc. not letting the Public know that "Going Digital" was not the same thing as going HD (50% of laymen that I talk to still believe going Digital means going HD) and it continues even now with the notion that 1080P Directv is the same as 1080P BluRay.
> It's all about hyping the parts that Fit and ignoring the other parts!


Blu Ray is not a standard of broadcast HD, so you are comparing the HD supplied by providers to something that is not in the same class. I know you don't want to hear that, but its a fact. If you want to compare it to the best way to watch a movie, thats fine, but its NOT a standard for HD.

And no offense, but please don;t revise History. There has never been any OTA regular broadcast of HD at 30mbits... anywhere.. Maybe someone tested it once, but its never been a standard in any way. I do believe Japan might have that standard...

And Directv is not "playing" around with anything with any of the HD they are shipping us today in terms of actual written standards for HD... Heck, the people messing the most are the darn OTA networks and Dish....


----------



## inkahauts

dcowboy7 said:


> If on a scale of 1-20 for video with 20 being a bluray....how would u rate:
> 
> Bluray = 20
> Fios = ?
> DirecTV = ?
> Dish = ?


I'm very picky.. so I'd say...

Bluray = 20

Actually, these ratings are conditional.. It depends on what movie. Poorly mastered movies don't look great.. ( i have seen some good master DVD's on my hi end DVD player look better than poorly done Bluray movies) So I am rating based on a well mastered movie, and am doing the same with the other providers.. I assume your looking at a channel that is being well mastered and is sending the providers a good signal, like say the food network. Not all do.)

Fios = 10

Directv = 10

Dish = 2

All cable = -10000K


----------



## Reaper

LameLefty said:


> I'll stack my aerospace engineering degree and spacecraft design experience against your *BOLDFACE* and *ITALICS* insults any day. :lol:
> 
> If a technology is completely unavailable to the vast majority of its potential customers, it's not objectively better to those potential customers.
> 
> Speaking of bandwidth, Verizon's bandwidth in my living room is whatever their CDMA-based cell service can provide. That's it.
> 
> Directv's (and Dish's and Comcast's, for that matter) is thus infinitely greater. Putting it in the mathematical terms you seem to be so fond of, you DO recall, don't you, that dividing whatever television service bandwidth IS available by Verizon's big, fat, 0 will, in fact, be infinity.
> 
> But of course, you already knew that, right? :lol:


What you can say is that D* is the best HD broadcast that YOU can receive, but you cannot use that same argument to say that D* is the best HD broadcast period. Your argument otherwise is damn silly.


----------



## Reaper

dcowboy7 said:


> If on a scale of 1-20 for video with 20 being a bluray....how would u rate:
> 
> Bluray = 20
> Fios = ?
> DirecTV = ?
> Dish = ?


Blu-ray = 20
FiOS = 19
DirecTV = 15
Dish = 13


----------



## Reaper

dubber deux said:


> PLEASE keep this thread unlocked!
> 
> I would love to know about the comparison of SD offerings. How do they compare?


On my 55" plasma, the FiOS SD channels are near DVD quality. By contrast, D* SD channels are downressed and are so soft as to be practically unwatchable.


----------



## veryoldschool

Reaper said:


> On my 55" plasma, the FiOS SD channels are near DVD quality. By contrast, D* SD channels are downressed and are so soft as to be practically unwatchable.


 I've got a 46" and while SD is "SD" I think the scaler in the TV does a better job than the one in the STB, so I use native for the TV to do the work. I'm not going to praise SD, but [for me] it's not "practically unwatchable".


----------



## harsh

The problem with dividing transponder bandwidth by the number of channels is that it doesn't take into account the effective bit rate after error correction and the impact of using various modulation schemes.

Things are seldom as simple as we would like them to be.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> The problem with dividing transponder bandwidth by the number of channels is that it doesn't take into account the effective bit rate after error correction and the impact of using various modulation schemes.
> 
> Things are seldom as simple as we would like them to be.


[God, I can't believe I'm doing this] 
I have to agree. Channels/bit-rates/transponders/bandwidth are way too complex to use 1 + 1 +... to know what is what. Each transponder statistically adjusts allotted bandwidth for the bitrates of all the channels on each. Since MPEG-4 bitrates vary by the changes in the programing [frames], the VOD 1080p/24 will vary from 2-16 Mb/s [as I've monitored it].


----------



## Zellio

inkahauts said:


> Uh, where do I start.. The question was, whow much bandwidth do they have entering your home? Therefore, thats what matters, because that bandwidth is where they have to fit all their channels into to get to you. I assume your not talkign about switched video system that Cable uses.. If so, then we have to add more bandwidth to Fios, basically, find the smallest point in the chain rather than at the home, which most likely is going to be the combined maximum amount of bandwidth used by all the broadcasters that are sending their signals to Fios at any given time, assuming that Fios doesn't touch those signals in any way, which I don't believe they do. Then we will have an accurate amount of bandwidth that Fios uses to broadcast all their channels to homes to compare it with Directv and Dish.
> 
> Your point about Fiber plants, ah, I didn't ask for every piece of bandwidth that Directv has, or else its way more than double the number on the board, when you add in all the backhaul, and capturing channels from broadcaster that send their signals via sat, so again, not relevant. And no matter what they can do, the question remains, what is actually present going into the house today. This is not a thread about theoretics of technologies, cause then it would never end, and I'd be talking about the company thats going to launch a bunch of sats to capture solar energy in space, beam it down to earth, and then sell it to PG&E.. (no, I'm not making that up, and its cool)
> 
> Also, again, internet bandwidth is specifically excluded, because they don't use that bandwidth for pumping out TV stations.
> 
> Now, why its not misleading is, Directv is sending down programing to all people through that bandwidth all at the same time. Period. And what are you talking about stored? Nothing sits on a sat, its bounced off sats to customers homes and through those dishes to their receivers.. Where are you getting this?
> 
> Your arguments in that post are seemingly meaningless in the context of this thread, because again, just because it could happen, doesn't mean it is, and this thread is all about whats current, not what could be down the road.. Fios offers no advantages in PQ that I have seen, since I only care about HD, and I have seen FIOS in action, at it is very nice.. Way better than regular cable... But their DVRS make me gag... OT.. HOW can you come out with the latest and greatest in transition and distribution systems, and use old crap that the oldest provider in the world uses as your final interface with your customers? Hello!!!!!)


My point is specifically about theoretics, esp. when you talk hd compression. Fios can hold alot more data, and fiber optics themselves are the only things capable of showing data beyond 1080p.

Potential bandwidth is a huge subject to talk about, esp. when going beyond 1080.


----------



## harsh

Zellio said:


> Fios can hold alot more data, and fiber optics themselves are the only things capable of showing data beyond 1080p


FIOS can hold a lot of data, but due to their choice of modulation schemes, much of it cannot be used for conventional video.

Bandwidth existed long before fiber.


----------



## Reaper

veryoldschool said:


> I've got a 46" and while SD is "SD" I think the scaler in the TV does a better job than the one in the STB, so I use native for the TV to do the work. I'm not going to praise SD, but [for me] it's not "practically unwatchable".


Compare D* SD to DVD video quality. That's about the same as comparing D*'s SD to FiOS'.


----------



## DarinC

In an attempt to get this back on topic...


BattleZone said:


> 8PSK give you a percentage or two of extra bandwidth, but even across several channels, it isn't a huge difference; certainly not enough to, say, add an additional channel per transponder.


8PSK actually provides *50%* more bandwidth over QPSK. That is significant. However, it is much more succeptible to noise, and generally requires more error correction, which takes away from that 50% advantage (though it should take away 48-49% of it). But there are a lot of variables at play, so we have no way of knowing WHY they aren't using 8PSK.

Everything I had heard when they were first talking about hte new Ka sats was that they'd be using 8PSK. And DirecTV's own channel capacity numbers seemed to suggest it. But for whatever reason, they apparently aren't using 8PSK on the CONUS transponders, and they still aren't at their claimed channel capacity. The best answer I can come up with is simply that it didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Ka is new, and their initial expectations may have been a bit optimistic. I'm guessing that they simply don't have the power to produce a reliable CONUS signal with a full transponder load. They are now claiming that D12 will improve their channel count, when technically, it _shouldn't_, UNLESS they have a power issue. To the best of my knowledge, they are already using all the Ka frequencies that we can currently receive. D12 can't go to 101, because our dishes don't have a 101 Ka LNB, and I believe they are using all the 101 frequencies for uplink. So the only obvious explanation to me is that D12 will co-locate with either D10 or D11, and some of the content of one of those will be offloaded to D12. If they need to do that to get more capacity, then that would indicate that D10 and D11 don't have enough power to drive that many transponders with a high enough output for a robust 8PSK signal, but splitting the transponders between two satellites gives them enough power to increase the power per transponder to the level needed for a reliable 8PSK encoding, which will increase their bandwidth.

Or, maybe they can do 8PSK now, and just haven't because they don't yet need all that capacity, and are simply saving power.


----------



## veryoldschool

Reaper said:


> Compare D* SD to DVD video quality. That's about the same as comparing D*'s SD to FiOS'.


Some DirecTV SD actually looks fairly good on my Sony XBR.
[again] I'm not praising DirecTV's SD. 
I've posted what others have reported the [raw] resolution to be.
A crappy scaler won't help it either, while a good scaler can make it look "not so bad".
With a 1080 display, the "made up" pixels will be nine times the "real pixels". "The best" FiOS could do is to reduce this from 9 to 6.75 and I'd bet it's more like 7.
At seven times "made up" to "real", the scaler quality is still improtant.
DVD = 6 x "made up" to "real".
Not matter how you slice or dice it: 480 resolution [SD/DVD] on a 1080 display is more "made up" than "real".


----------



## Reaper

veryoldschool said:


> Some DirecTV SD actually looks fairly good on my Sony XBR.
> [again] I'm not praising DirecTV's SD.
> I've posted what others have reported the [raw] resolution to be.
> A crappy scaler won't help it either, while a good scaler can make it look "not so bad".
> With a 1080 display, the "made up" pixels will be nine times the "real pixels". "The best" FiOS could do is to reduce this from 9 to 6.75 and I'd bet it's more like 7.
> At seven times "made up" to "real", the scaler quality is still improtant.
> DVD = 6 x "made up" to "real".
> Not matter how you slice or dice it: 480 resolution [SD/DVD] on a 1080 display is more "made up" than "real".


Well, in general I agree with your statements (I'm not going to do the math right now but it seems reasonable). However, a true 480 signal should be 480x640. D* downresses theirs to 480x480 so there's even more information that has to be "made up" by the scaler.

Again, compare DVD to D* SD. Are they close in quality? They weren't for me. In contrast, DVD and FiOS' SD are close in quality.


----------



## veryoldschool

Reaper said:


> Well, in general I agree with your statements (I'm not going to do the math right now but it seems reasonable). However, a true 480 signal should be 480x640. D* downresses theirs to 480x480 so there's even more information that has to be "made up" by the scaler.
> 
> Again, compare DVD to D* SD. Are they close in quality? They weren't for me. In contrast, DVD and FiOS' SD are close in quality.


If you did "the math", you'd get the same numbers and I did use 480 x 480 for DirecTV, 480 x 640 for FiOS, though Broadcast SD clips this down slightly.
Do some DirecTV SD channels look like crap? sure.
Some SD programs don't seem to though. History International & a couple of the HBO channels, come to mind, have had programs that don't look that bad. No, they're not HD [duh], but they've looked "fairly good".


----------



## MountainMan10

D* SD is much better on my Sharp 1080p 46" than it is on my Samsung 720p 32". Part of it is on my Sharp I use native on and view SD in 480p. It is watchable.
DVD's from my bluray player in 480p look much better than D* SD, but not near as good as D* HD or bluray disks.

In the end I really don't care if FIOS SD is better than D* SD. I don't watch SD unless I have to.


----------



## Reaper

MountainMan10 said:


> D* SD is much better on my Sharp 1080p 46" than it is on my Samsung 720p 32". Part of it is on my Sharp I use native on and view SD in 480p. It is watchable.
> DVD's from my bluray player in 480p look much better than D* SD, but not near as good as D* HD or bluray disks.
> 
> In the end I really don't care if FIOS SD is better than D* SD. I don't watch SD unless I have to.


Thanks MountainMan10, you've made my point for me: when I had D* I did not watch any SD unless I had to. Now that I have FiOS, I occasionally watch SD and I'm not as distracted by poor video quality.


----------



## Reaper

veryoldschool said:


> If you did "the math", you'd get the same numbers...


I was agreeing with you. Geez!


----------



## evan_s

As it stands FIOS's TV bandwidth is essentially the same an all digital cable system with no QAM channels used up for VoD or Cable internet because their VoD is handled via Ip and comes over the separate wavelengths of light. The net result is they have plenty of bandwidth to handle ~150 hd channels at broadcast bitrates and plenty of SD channels. From the looks of things they have a good amount of bandwidth available to cover their needs and plenty of options for future expansion.

DirecTV on the other hand has 12 500mhz blocks (3 on each of the 4 switch options) but can't compare that directly to FIOS or other systems because of different encoding, error correction and compressions used. DirecTV isn't anywhere using all of the 6ghz worth of bandwidth for delivering content to any individual customer for various reasons. Currently DirecTV is able to provide 140 hd channels and a large number of SD channels and has another stat launch pending that should increase that. DirecTV does use MPEG4 and by nature has to recompress any OTA signals and at least some if not most of the other channels but it is at a bit rate that should be visually transparent when compared to the original OTA signal because of MPEG4's increased efficiency.

Over all both providers look to be in a pretty good place when it comes to bandwidth. Neither is available to everyone. Fios has limited deployments areas and DirecTV has LOS issues. If someone happens to be able to choose between the two they are pretty lucky.


----------



## Doug Brott

Seems we've moved way beyond the original topic .. rather than close it, I'm moving it. Seems the thread was never really about DIRECTV anyway.


----------



## evan_s

DarinC said:


> They are now claiming that D12 will improve their channel count, when technically, it _shouldn't_, UNLESS they have a power issue. To the best of my knowledge, they are already using all the Ka frequencies that we can currently receive. D12 can't go to 101, because our dishes don't have a 101 Ka LNB, and I believe they are using all the 101 frequencies for uplink. So the only obvious explanation to me is that D12 will co-locate with either D10 or D11, and some of the content of one of those will be offloaded to D12. If they need to do that to get more capacity, then that would indicate that D10 and D11 don't have enough power to drive that many transponders with a high enough output for a robust 8PSK signal, but splitting the transponders between two satellites gives them enough power to increase the power per transponder to the level needed for a reliable 8PSK encoding, which will increase their bandwidth.
> 
> Or, maybe they can do 8PSK now, and just haven't because they don't yet need all that capacity, and are simply saving power.


There are a number of possibilities on what DirecTV is doing with D12.

There are 2 blocks for Ka frequencies at each spot. Each has 1 sat in it. Ka Hi has the 2 spaceway sats and the Ka Lo has d10/11. So while we are receiving something from each of the 4 blocks I wouldn't say they are fully loaded up by any means with 2 blocks doing nothing but providing spot beams from 1 sat each.

One possible option is DirecTV could move one of the spaceway sats to the other orbital slot and operate both spaceways from a single Ka Hi slot. This shouldn't be problem given the flexibility of the phased array used by these stats and leaves a completely empty Ka Hi block for d12 to be used in the same way as d10/d11 are. This would require some changes to the sat before launch and would limit future flexibility some also since D12 wouldn't be configured the same as d10/d11.

DirecTV could also co-locate D12 with either d10 or d11 in a Ka Lo slot. DirecTv has broken the Ka Lo blocks into 24 transponders. Currently they use 14 tps for Conus channels and 10 for Spot beams. That is most likely more transponders than are needed for spot beams since 101 only uses 4tps and 119 only uses 3. D10 also ran 16 conus tps for a while before D11 launched. A second sat co-located at either slot could definitely run a few more Conus TPs. Potentially when combined with 8psk/lower error correction rate to get more usable bandwidth per TP but still maintain good reception by running them at a higher power.

Current math is 14 tps * 5 channels per tp = 70 channels per sat. Lets say they do 18 tps with 7 channels thanks to running 8psk that would result in 126 channels or 56 more channels. Right around where they are talking about.

I don't think they are simply saving power because they can. When it comes to a Sat the power for things like the Conus TPs comes from the solar panels not from some sort of fuel. So running at lower power now isn't going to leave more fuel to run it for longer later. The fuel on sats is for position keeping/movement. Later in a sats life after solar panels have failed or aren't working as well running a sat at lower power/less tps can allow you to continue using the sat with in the reduced power budget. More likely they just don't have the power budget to do so. If you look at 101 for example DirecTV has 3 sats there providing the conus and spot coverage.

Ultimately only time will tell what they do. I've changed my mind a few times but currently I think we will see D12 in Ka Lo with D10 running a few more TP total at a higher power level allowing 8psk and thus more channels per tp.


----------



## Reaper

Doug Brott said:


> Seems we've moved way beyond the original topic .. rather than close it, I'm moving it. Seems the thread was never really about DIRECTV anyway.


Good call Doug, thanks for not closing the thread. And sorry for all the off-topic posts - but when discussing video quality it's hard not to interject comments about FiOS.


----------



## veryoldschool

Reaper said:


> Good call Doug, thanks for not closing the thread. And sorry for all the off-topic posts - but when discussing video quality it's hard not to interject comments about FiOS.


Since this got moved, this may be my last post and is more just a comment.
I just finished watching a Boston Legal recording from WGN. Color, clarity all looked pretty good. During one of the fast panning outside screen shots of the buildings, I noticed some [slightly] jagged edges on them. All and all though the general PQ looked pretty good.
Now "the funny thing" was when I ended the recording and switched back to my local HD NBC. I instantly looked at something so blurry and washed out color, it looked like I was looking through a fish tank. This was "Martha Stuart" [not that I planned to watch it, just what was on] and on the OTA feed, so DirecTV had nothing to do with it, but was "simply" upcoverted SD broadcast on the OTA HD channel.


----------



## DarinC

evan_s said:


> There are a number of possibilities on what DirecTV is doing with D12.


Yes, they could jumble them around in several different combinations. The point being, however, that they currently have enough satellites in position to use all the licensed frequencies that we can currently receive. Some have suggested that they are essentially out of CONUS bandwidth until D12 launches. D12 doesn't give them an ability to transmit on any more frequencies than they already can. So if they _need_ D12 to push their bandwidth higher, that suggests that they need more _power_. Obviously, power alone doesn't increase bandwidth, but it does allow tighter encoding and less error correction, which results in more bandwidth for a given amount of spectrum.



> I don't think they are simply saving power because they can. When it comes to a Sat the power for things like the Conus TPs comes from the solar panels not from some sort of fuel. So running at lower power now isn't going to leave more fuel to run it for longer later.


Yes, and no. Outside of some type failure, there are two "consumables" on the satellite that limit their lives: thruster fuel and battery longevity. Any time they in the earth's shadow, they have to operate on batteries. The life of a battery is affected not only by the frequency of discharges (fixed, in this case), but also by how heavily they are used. Higher currents when discharging and recharging, as well as deeper discharges, can reduce their life. So even though the power source is "free", that doesn't mean that there's no consequence of using power unnecessarily. If they don't have enough content to saturate their bandwidth _potential_ using 8PSK, then they can use less power by using QPSK and/or more error correction.

Technically, this can also help them save thruster fuel. Once the sat is in position, it's only needed for housekeeping. But IF they are in a position where they just don't yet NEED all their potential bandwidth, they can run looser housekeeping, which uses less fuel. Using QPSK and high error correction can help with the lower signals that can result from poor dish alignment, regardless of whether that's due to the dish not being aimed properly, or the sat just not being exactly where it's supposed to be. So whether your saving sat fuel, or saving money on truck rolls, there's still an advantage to using QPSK over 8PSK in cases where you just don't need all of your potential bandwidth.

I too am leaning towards the possibility that they may simply not have the power to use 8PSK reliably on the CONUS transponders. But the fact that they AREN'T using 8PSK doesn't necessarily mean they can't. It _could_ just mean that they don't yet have enough content lined up, so QPSK could make more sense for their current situation. A lot of that comes down to whether or not you believe they haven't rolled out more HD because they can't, or because it's just a business decision.


----------



## Drew2k

Doug Brott said:


> Seems we've moved way beyond the original topic .. rather than close it, I'm moving it. Seems the thread was never really about DIRECTV anyway.


Thanks for the closure, if you know what I mean ... Now I can unsubscribe, as I was interested int he Dish/DIRECTV comparisons, but not in the Fios discussion.


----------



## Brandon428

Dish vs Directv picture quality has been done to death. I much rather talk about the technological possibilities of Dish,Directv and FiOS(or fiber optics in general).


----------



## Artwood

What I'd like to see is comparison photos of DirecTV, DISH, FIOS, and OTA showing the same programs--both HD and SD.

It'd be nice to view such things.

Then I could read volumes about what was wrong with the pictures and how they couldn't be trusted.

I think there is about as much chance of viewing those pictures as of hearing exactly how each provider alters the signal that they receive.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually see what each provider receives and how much it changes once you receive it and compare?


----------



## inkahauts

DarinC said:


> Yes, they could jumble them around in several different combinations. The point being, however, that they currently have enough satellites in position to use all the licensed frequencies that we can currently receive. Some have suggested that they are essentially out of CONUS bandwidth until D12 launches. D12 doesn't give them an ability to transmit on any more frequencies than they already can. So if they _need_ D12 to push their bandwidth higher, that suggests that they need more _power_. Obviously, power alone doesn't increase bandwidth, but it does allow tighter encoding and less error correction, which results in more bandwidth for a given amount of spectrum.
> 
> Yes, and no. Outside of some type failure, there are two "consumables" on the satellite that limit their lives: thruster fuel and battery longevity. Any time they in the earth's shadow, they have to operate on batteries. The life of a battery is affected not only by the frequency of discharges (fixed, in this case), but also by how heavily they are used. Higher currents when discharging and recharging, as well as deeper discharges, can reduce their life. So even though the power source is "free", that doesn't mean that there's no consequence of using power unnecessarily. If they don't have enough content to saturate their bandwidth _potential_ using 8PSK, then they can use less power by using QPSK and/or more error correction.
> 
> Technically, this can also help them save thruster fuel. Once the sat is in position, it's only needed for housekeeping. But IF they are in a position where they just don't yet NEED all their potential bandwidth, they can run looser housekeeping, which uses less fuel. Using QPSK and high error correction can help with the lower signals that can result from poor dish alignment, regardless of whether that's due to the dish not being aimed properly, or the sat just not being exactly where it's supposed to be. So whether your saving sat fuel, or saving money on truck rolls, there's still an advantage to using QPSK over 8PSK in cases where you just don't need all of your potential bandwidth.
> 
> I too am leaning towards the possibility that they may simply not have the power to use 8PSK reliably on the CONUS transponders. But the fact that they AREN'T using 8PSK doesn't necessarily mean they can't. It _could_ just mean that they don't yet have enough content lined up, so QPSK could make more sense for their current situation. A lot of that comes down to whether or not you believe they haven't rolled out more HD because they can't, or because it's just a business decision.


I think there is one thing you might be missing there.. They may need more spotbeams in the air.. Right now they have a set amount that are pointed in specific places on D10 and D11.. and we have all heard about D10 spot beam issues.. They have done some re balancing on the spaceways already, but I have a feeling that D12 may be need to finish the re balancing of the transponders so that they can hit all markets with less frequency than they are using now, which would also free up conus bandwidth.. I f that is what happens, then it wouldn't be a power issue...


----------

