Devil's Advocate?

JoeSp

Supporting Founder
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Oct 11, 2003
2,284
0
So Charlie needs a push in order to move on anymore HD? I think we can all agree that the latest anouncement by D* is right now setting in Charlie's jawbone and I am sure he has something up his sleeve. And what might that be?

How about a preemtive strike. A new sattelite goes up this month. Give 30 days for getting into posistion and by Thanksgiving Charlie can be offering the top 30 HD markets of this one satellite to the entire US market. He could be puttting 3 HD channels per transpoder using 8VSB and we already have the equipment to make it work. All we would need is the SuperDish which I am sure has all the kinks worked out in production channels by now.

So what do you think, use the new AMC-15 for HD expansion and beat D* to the punch or lose all your HD customers? What do you think Charlie will do? :rolleyes:
 
JoeSp said:
He could be puttting 3 HD channels per transpoder using 8VSB and we already have the equipment to make it work.
WRONG! If you think 3 channels/transponder with 8VSB is the answer,it's not. Dish has already proven that this does not give us a satisfactory picture. Try switching between DiscoveryHD and HDNET and you'll see the difference in crispness. HDNET is 2/transponder and DiscHD is 3, there is no comparison. They tried mucking with HDNET and HDNET Movies and they looked horrible. They need to stick with 2/transponder if they want to be the "PQ Leader", but we all know what Dish wants, the MOST channels, regardless of how they look, they've already proved themselves on this front with their horrible SD channels. :no
 
Guy's it's 8PSK not 8VSB, just to clarify. 8VSB is for over the air reception of both standard definition analog signals and HDTV digital broadcasts! In my opinion, Dish Net should stick with 2 channel per transponder.
 
DarrellP said:
WRONG! If you think 3 channels/transponder with 8VSB is the answer,it's not.

DarrellP, I was not stating a fact but a possibility. Charlie is going to have to do something and right now the only thing he has in his arsenal is the new sat. How many transponders on this one -- 48? At 2 per that is 96 channels-- that would only give you about 15 markets. AT 3 per that is 132 and if you put up only the majors, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN & WB that is 6 stations per market. Divided into 132 and you would get 22 markets. Add the wing sats and Charlie could easily offer up the top 30 markets and any new HD channels for the next 18 months.

Other than that E* is *crewd! There is currently nothing on Charlies plate that can compete with the Spaceway sats that D* will be hosting next spring. There is nothing currently out there but ---VOOM! OH MY! :eek:

A buyout of VOOM might be the only way for Charlie to go. They are ready to move to MPEG 4 this fall and maybe the AMC 15 can be equiped or is already equiped with MPEG4 and this could be a solution. Charlie is going to have to do something drastic or he can say goodbye to the bulk of his HD viewers next summer. I will be one of them -- my market is number 29 and growing. To be able to get my HD channels from a dish will bring out my wallet for sure! :yes
 
First, let me preface my post with the fact that the information and speculation that I am providing is based on a great many other posts over the past few months on this forum and the other satellite TV forum. If you know this info is wrong, please correct it.

In regards to AMC-15, it is planned to be launched on 9/24/04 to the 105 location. It has 24 Ku band? transponders (TPs) and about twice the power as the current 105 satellite which makes it available to the entire US. The current 105 satellite also only has 24 TPs and only carries 12 SD channels per TP because of its low power. Because AMC-15 only has 24 TPs and greater power, it will be capable of carry 16 channels per TP with the same relative PQ as the 12 SD channel per TP on the current 105 satellite. I don't know if this is valid but using the SD/HD channel ratios from the 110 satellite, putting 3 HD channels per TP (16/3) will have much better PQ than 3 HD channels per TP (12/3) on 110 but not quite as good as 2 HD channels per TP (12/2) that 110 was using or is using for the HDNET and HDNMV channels. The 16 SD channel per TP capability of AMC-15 increases the SD channel capacity at the 105 location by 33 percent (16/12 = 1.33). Therefore, even if the 24 TPs on the current 105 satellite were completely filled, AMC-15 would have a third of its TPs (8) free. These TPs could be used for 24 HD channels at 3 HD channels per TP with reasonable PQ or 32 HD channels with questionable PQ. There is also Ka band spotbeam TPs on AMC-15 that were planned to be used for internet access and possibly video on demand (VOD) capability. I don't know much detail about these TPs but perhaps these could be used for local HD channels. In addition the current old 105 satellite that is owned by Americom? could be put into another location licensed to Dish or Americom and Dish could get FCC permission to use it for local HD channels temporarily until a new satellite is built.

I also thought Dish had an agreement with Americom for another Ku/Ka band satellite to be launched in 2005 but I don't remember what orbital location if one was announced. There is also the new 110 spotbeam satellite that also may be launched next year. I believe it is suppose to have 45 spotbeams as compared to about 25 spotbeams using 5 TPs for the current spotbeam satellite at 110 (TPs 2, 4, 6, 8, 10). I don't know how many TPs those 45 spotbeams will require but there are about 40 local channels currently on 110 using CONUS TPs not counting the distant networks. This equates to over 3 TPs that could be used for these spotbeams if necessary or HD channels.

This thread was started because of the recent DirecTV announcement of HD locals to be provided on two satellites to be launched in 2005. These will be Ku/KA band satellites and you will probably need the rumored new 33 inch dish that can receive signals from 5 orbital locations. This should be a real joy to install and aim. In addition, DirecTV's recent track record for getting satellites built and launched on schedule has not been good.
 
charlie said he would not be the first on anything. most likely, it will be used for more locals like - up your ass, tn - behind the creek, wv, in the toilet, va - in the ant farm, ga.

as much as i wish that he would counter act, he aint going to do nothing
 
Your correct about the technical aspects of AMC 15, but the lauch has been delayed. Here is the report fron www.skyreport.com:

Olmstead Leaves SES, AMC-15 Delayed

SES Americom said President and CEO Dean Olmstead, who led the company when it formed Americom2Home and attracted EchoStar to the developing satellite TV platform at 105 degrees, has left the company to pursue other interests.

Romain Bausch, chief executive of SES Americom parent SES Global and chairman of SES Americom's board, will along with other executives continue to execute SES Americom's business strategy until a successor is appointed, the company said.

Bausch said, "Dean was instrumental in the successful integration of SES Americom into the SES Global family and in developing new market areas, such as Americom2Home." He added, "The company is on track to grow in each of its market sectors, thus maintaining its industry leadership in North America."

Olmstead was at the helm of SES Americom during the formation of Americom2Home, the company's wholesale satellite TV platform that aims to use the 105-degree orbital location for its AMC-15 satellite. EchoStar has signed on as the chief tenant of the platform, which is close to its orbital location at 110 degrees.

In another development, Lockheed Martin's International Launch Services said the launch of the AMC-15 satellite, which was scheduled for Sept. 24 on a Proton vehicle, has been postponed to allow for additional testing of one of the rocket's avionics subsystems. The flight was set to take place from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

In a statement, EchoStar said it's disappointed the launch of AMC 15 has been delayed. "We want to put the additional capacity to use as soon as possible, but based on the information provided to us we do not currently expect that the postponement will have a significant impact on delivery of DISH Network services," the company said.

The AMC-15 launch is one of a handful being conducted by ILS for SES Americom. AMC-10 and AMC-11 were successfully launched on ILS Atlas vehicles in February and May, respectively.
 
JoeSp said:
So Charlie needs a push in order to move on anymore HD? I think we can all agree that the latest anouncement by D* is right now setting in Charlie's jawbone and I am sure he has something up his sleeve. And what might that be?

How about a preemtive strike. A new sattelite goes up this month. Give 30 days for getting into posistion and by Thanksgiving Charlie can be offering the top 30 HD markets of this one satellite to the entire US market. He could be puttting 3 HD channels per transpoder using 8VSB and we already have the equipment to make it work. All we would need is the SuperDish which I am sure has all the kinks worked out in production channels by now.

So what do you think, use the new AMC-15 for HD expansion and beat D* to the punch or lose all your HD customers? What do you think Charlie will do? :rolleyes:

First, there is not enough room on AMC-15 for the top 30 HD markets with the SD locals already there at the 105 orbital location. There would be enough room for all the current national HD channels at 105 with AMC-15. See my post above.

Second, why would you think Dish would have permission to offer the HD channels from the top 30 markets into other markets? Dish is pushing the Congress/FCC for HD distant nets which makes more sense from a bandwidth perspective and would allow Dish to offer HD locals to those who can't get HD locals OTA. I am fortunate that I am able to get most of my local HD stations OTA but many can not because of their location (terrain/low power/distance) or are not broadcast and will not be broadcast for a few years. This is how Dish started and built their success for those who couldn't get cable or had crappy cable and I think Dish will follow that philosphy for HD locals.
 
The Spaceway sats are done. They already have been assigned lauch dates and that is why D* has made their announcement. Charlie is in a pickle.

When Murdoch purchased D* he stated that HD was the future and that was the direction he was going to go in. The announcement by D* while forward looking is mathematically possible and would put VOOM out of business. They (VOOM) basically have only one sat. E* would not be far behind.

Charlie has to do something. I have yet to visit a board where individuals are not complaining about how hard it is to receive the OTA digital signals from all the stations in their area. This is their major complaint! Heck in mine I have signal strengths in the high 80's and my 811 can not even hold onto that. However, the HD from E* looks and sounds great and I very seldom have any problems (except with the freezes on TNT-HD). So if I had a choice to be able to receive my HD locals from a sattelite or from my OTA antenna I would pick the sat so fast the credit card in my wallet would faint!

Let's face it, D*'s annoucement is a grab at E*s and VOOMS business. It pulls out all the stops over cable and to be able to provide the top 30 to 40 markets in HD (only to those market areas here) would be seen to most customers in those markets as the way to go.

So the question for MR. TUNA----What is it going to be --Chicken or Bye-Bye Me (and most of E*s HD customers)!!
 
The sky is falling....The sky is falling.

Bullsh*t. :rolleyes:

It never fails to amaze how early adopters, no matter how small their actual number is, assign their group more value than their overall percentage dictates.

I think D* announcement is great! It will be even more great when it actually becomes a reality. The fact that they are willing to make such a large investment for what is currently such a small percentage of their subscriber base is encouraging.

The fact remains that the vast majority of US households do not have a HD capable television and won't have one for many many years. E* may indeed have plans to match D* HD channel for channel but if they don't it will hardly be the end of the company. There is no need, nor is it desirable, for a company to respond with a knee jerk reaction to every announcement by it's competitor. I have 5 other friends and family that also have E*. None of them have HD or are even considering it in the near future. For them D* announcement is irrelevant.

I suspect over the next year E* HD plans will be revealed. If i find them acceptable I will stay with E*. If I don't I now have the option (no more Pegasus,yea!!) to go to D*. Either way I believe both companies will continue to prosper and provide competition and choices to all satellite viewers.


NightRyder
 
While you may think that this annoucement is not significant -- it is. The FCC just gave Charlie less then 18 months to get his locals on one satellite. The FCC also has refused requests to push back the June 2006 date for turnover of all analog frequencys currently being used for TV. It also has restated that HD and not 480p is the desired use of digital broadcasting. In addition to that, the top 45 markets represent approximately 80% of all viewship in the USA. Those markets have for the most part already gone to digital transmissions and the majority that have HD content to show are putting up HD signals

I was just in a SuperWalmart this Saturday and they are selling a 30" Sanyo HD with HDMI and a HD Digital tuner for $679. Whether you want to believe or not that is a mass market penetration price point for HD TV's. If Walmart is smart enough to push HD TV's then America is just around the corner from adoption. There is no more early adoption for HD. We are in the strech run towards mass market appeal and prices under $1000 is what will get this to the table.

As for not needing HD -- sure you will be able to watch downconverted shows on E* for awhile. You are doing that right now. However, people who are purchasing tv's today are buying primarily HD ready sets. The requirement by the FCC that starting with 2005 a digital tuner must be included along with the push by cable and satellite for their new digital tuners is saying that not only digital transmission but HD transmission is what their customers are requesting.

You are right, the sky is not falling today. But come June 2005 if D* starts offering the top 30 markets in HD you watch cable and E* start to squirm. You watch their customer base shrink. You watch the next Charlie Chat and see if D*'s annoucement has him promising the bath water without the baby. Charlie does not have the resources in the sky to currently pull this off. He also does not have enough going up in the next 12 months to match D*. He will be where he was 8 years ago when I started using E* -- he will be catching up. It was the price that attracted me then. I am now an HD viewer with a complete home theater system and I want my HDTV. Especially my locals. If D* comes to bat first I will change and here is my point -- so will alot of other HD users. Go ahead and try and convince me that those using a 921 DVR would not jump at the chance to have a TIVO HD with working firewire and their HD locals on their dish?

You are right -- the sky is not falling -- however -- the slow cooking on the back burner has been moved to the front and D* has just turned up the heat! :D
 
Once again, a reality check regarding HD.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/ne...ews8friday.html

Awareness of and interest in high-definition television (HDTV) seems to fall neatly along income lines, according to new research from Leichtman Research Group. Total adoption of HDTV increased to 4 percent this year, with most buyers in a high-income bracket. Just 2 percent of households with incomes below $75,000 have HDTV compared to 12 percent in households with incomes above $75,000. Eighty-nine percent of higher-income households are aware of HDTV, 20 percentage points higher than the lower-income level awareness. Current HDTV owners have an average household income 73 percent above the average level. Higher-income households that have looked into buying an HDTV set in the past six months number nearly three times that of lower-income households, at 11 percent. Leichtman predicts that HDTV-capable households will reach 33 million by the end of 2007. There are currently 275 million TV sets in U.S. households.


http://www.bigpicture-hdtv.com/industry.html

By 2008, the number of HD-capable displays in US homes will have reached 33.4 million units. Of these displays, 27 percent will be connected to an HDTV service via cable, 14 percent via satellite, and 8 percent via digital terrestrial television. The report identifies the increasing support of cable and satellite operators and their content partners as a key factor in the take-up of HDTV services.

"HDTV has been a long time coming," says David Mercer, Vice President, Broadband Practice, at Strategy Analytics. "But sufficient momentum is now building at both content and operator levels to ensure a successful niche market in the longer term."

US HDTV Forecast: 2008

Total HD-Capable Displays Installed: 33.4 million

Percent with terrestrial HDTV: 8%

Percent with cable HDTV: 27%

Percent with satellite HDTV: 14%

Percent with no HDTV service: 51%

Source: Strategy Analytics Broadband Practice


More....


Here are the most current numbers I could find.

http://www.ppa.com.tw/IN-STAT/news/040409_MDR.htm

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., April 5, 2004 - After years of hype andpromises, high-definition television (HDTV) services have finally captured the imagination of a small, but growing, audience of TV viewers who now enjoy HDTV's extraordinary clear and crisp picture quality. With its life-like detail and impressive audio performance, HDTV service is also exciting TV broadcasters and multichannel service providers, according to In-Stat/MDR (http://www.instat.com), a high-tech market research firm. HDTV service, which is becoming widely available in a few select countries, is being marketed as a premium service that has the potential to boost incremental monthly revenues for cable and satellite operators, while also providing terrestrial TV broadcasters with a new weapon in their fight against pay-TV services.

Currently, just over 4 million worldwide TV households receive and watch HDTV programming, although most industry insiders expect that number to climb rapidly over the next few years. Increasing consumer demand for HDTV service is also driving sales of new consumer electronics products, such as HDTV sets and HD-capable set top boxes. However, there are still several market challenges that are reigning in the growth of HDTV services. These include the need for more HD programming, lowering the cost of HD equipment, increasing the availability of HD service, and better educating the public about the benefits of HDTV.

In-Stat/MDR also finds that:

Total worldwide terrestrial, satellite, and cable TV households that are watching HD programming on an HDTV set are projected to rise to almost 6 million by the end of 2004, and ultimately reach 45 million by the end of 2008.

HDTV service remains extremely limited in its reach, with only four countries offering the service beyond an experimental basis. These countries are Japan, the United States, Canada, and Australia. However, a few other countries, mostly in the Asia-Pacific region, are expected to roll out limited HDTV services in the next year.

Japan is leading the HDTV charge with over 2 million households receiving and watching HDTV programming. The US is second with just over 1.5 million households.


NightRyder
 
JoeSp said:
However, people who are purchasing tv's today are buying primarily HD ready sets.

While I applaud your optimistic outlook the facts indicate otherwise.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2004/08/08highdefinitiont.html

The high-definition television revolution is happening in slow motion.

Though HDTVs have been available for more than five years and offer a high-clarity, wide-screen format that is undeniably better than standard TV, fewer than 10 percent of U.S. households now have one. And while some analysts forecast that half the nation will be watching HDTV by 2009, sales have been below initial industry and government expectations, forcing the government to reconsider its deadlines for forcing HDTV adoption.

HDTV's virtues are the sharpness of its picture and the width of its screen.

A conventional TV picture is made up of 525 horizontal lines. By comparison, HDTV has 720 or 1,080 horizontal lines per picture (depending on the type of programming a customer watches most, since the lower line count works better for fast-moving sports events). Experts say the highest-resolution HDTV format has pictures that are about 10 times more detailed (based on the total amount of data the screen contains) than those on conventional TV.

In addition, while conventional TV screens are wider than they are tall by a ratio of 4 to 3 (called the aspect ratio), most HDTV screens are wider than they are tall by a ratio of 16 to 9.

The federal government believed these benefits would drive HDTV adoption. Now it may be reconsidering that assumption.

On its Web site, the Federal Communications Commission says the federal government's goal for requiring broadcasters to switch from conventional, or analog TV, signals to HDTV signals is Dec. 31, 2006.

After that, today's analog sets wouldn't work unless they got signals from cable TV, which would be able to convert the HDTV signals back into analog. The federal government then would be able to reclaim the analog part of the broadcast spectrum and auction it off for other purposes.

The FCC now says the 2006 date "may be extended until most homes [85 percent] in an area are able to watch the [HDTV] programming." But slow sales of HDTV sets mean there is essentially zero chance of hitting 85 percent market penetration by 2006, analysts say. As a result, the FCC is rumored to be considering a new, more flexible deadline of 2008 or 2009.

"Those original expectations were extremely aggressive and unrealistic," said Adi Kishore, a senior analyst for media and entertainment at the Yankee Group in Boston. "You don't see the consumer market respond that quickly."

One reason may be that not all TV programs are equally enhanced by HDTV. Industry studies suggest that HDTV buyers often are young men who like sports, because HDTV lends a you-are-there-quality to TV pictures. But while Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" is broadcast in HDTV, the clarity of the picture doesn't affect the sharpness of his jokes.

Earlier in the decade, HDTV manufacturers blamed slow sales on a lack of programming, and programming providers pointed to the high price of HDTV sets. Today, HDTV programming is more widely available and HDTV set prices have dropped, although many remain about $300 per set more expensive than comparable conventional TVs.

Analysts say a typical HDTV set costs $1,000 or more, although less desirable units with smaller, traditional aspect-ratio TV screens are said to be available for as little as $600. The catch, if there is one, is that less expensive HDTV sets typically don't include an over-the-air receiving device called a tuner. That's not a problem, though, if the customer gets an HDTV signal through a cable or satellite service, which provide everything needed to receive the signal.

The result has been an uptick in HDTV sales, but hardly a flood. It is projected that a cumulative total of about 12 million sets will have been sold by the end of this year (sales began in about 1998), Kishore said. He expects sales growth to accelerate, and he estimates that by 2009 half of all U.S. households will have HDTV.

"Sales of HDTV have gone up, but not dramatically," said Phillip Swann, a TV industry analyst with TVPredictions. com, a firm in Arlington, Va.



NightRyder
 

811 setup question...

total fees for 510 upgrade

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)