I seriously do not understand why the Cable operators have not caught up with this and start hurting the satellite companies with ads like you mention.
Facts about HD Lite on E*
- Thread starter Sean Mota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 27K
Because cable is more strapped for HD bandwidth than E* and D*. Many cable providers are now transmitting HD-lite. More are likely to do so in the future.
But cable has potential to provide a lot of HD, as described in this article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7530.html
But cable has potential to provide a lot of HD, as described in this article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7530.html
Last edited:
Because they have not been given the idea or the creative copy.
Again, I am contacting a CEO of one of the Top 4 cable companies in the USA I know tomorrow. It would help if anyone else knew any high ranking officials or people in their marketing to get the idea to.
Again, I am contacting a CEO of one of the Top 4 cable companies in the USA I know tomorrow. It would help if anyone else knew any high ranking officials or people in their marketing to get the idea to.
Bad News: EchoStar appears to have settled the DNS issue with broadcaster, with the exception of Fox Network (no surprise) and 25 affiliates. "Under terms of the deal, EchoStar said it will expand its local network channel by satellite service from about 165 markets to 175 markets by the end of the year."
More Bad News: I take this to mean there will be a lot more HD-Lite for everyone.
More Bad News: I take this to mean there will be a lot more HD-Lite for everyone.
We don't know which cable companies will implement switched digital and when they get around to it.
In the meantime, they are losing HD customers to DBS because they aren't offering enough HD channels. Therefore there is an incentive for cable companies to go to HD-lite to be competitive until they have switched digital.
In the meantime, they are losing HD customers to DBS because they aren't offering enough HD channels. Therefore there is an incentive for cable companies to go to HD-lite to be competitive until they have switched digital.
My take on the EchoStar DNS settlement and HD-Lite...
I am not going to argue my point because I am well aware that people have strong feelings about LIL, but IMO satellite providers should not be in the business of wasting valuable bandwidth providing LIL and HD LIL. With the notable exception of providing East/West coast feeds for those who do qualify, and are truly deserving of DNS, the great majority of the American population can receive their locals just fine with an OTA antenna solution or lifeline cable. Granted, the OTA solution may cost you $200-$500 (not a simple pair of rabbit ears, and perhaps multiple antennas and filters), but with a little effort reliable reception can be achieved. Likewise, lifeline cable is often an option in many localities.
Adding 10 more DMAs to the mix will only expedite E*'s downward spiral down the path of HD-Lite, and drive a lot of DishHD customers toward FiOS and OTA only in the coming months. I can see the day coming when someone says, "Hey, remember back in the day when E* used to provide all their HD channels is glorious 1280x1080i?" (obviously before E* further downrezzed all HD channels to 1120x1080i)
Why is it that people complain about having to mount an "ugly" and "archaic" UHF/VHF antenna on their rooftop, yet don't think twice about mounting 2 or 3 flying saucers?
Why is is that people will refer to the old reliable UHF/VHF antenna as being "a relic of the past", yet live their lives hard-wired to the local cable company...while singing the praises of their wireless cell phones and wireless home network? Folks, an OTA antenna is just as modern today as it was 60 years ago...it's a wireless video reception device! I say pull the plug on all LIL an HD LIL before it's too late.
I am not going to argue my point because I am well aware that people have strong feelings about LIL, but IMO satellite providers should not be in the business of wasting valuable bandwidth providing LIL and HD LIL. With the notable exception of providing East/West coast feeds for those who do qualify, and are truly deserving of DNS, the great majority of the American population can receive their locals just fine with an OTA antenna solution or lifeline cable. Granted, the OTA solution may cost you $200-$500 (not a simple pair of rabbit ears, and perhaps multiple antennas and filters), but with a little effort reliable reception can be achieved. Likewise, lifeline cable is often an option in many localities.
Adding 10 more DMAs to the mix will only expedite E*'s downward spiral down the path of HD-Lite, and drive a lot of DishHD customers toward FiOS and OTA only in the coming months. I can see the day coming when someone says, "Hey, remember back in the day when E* used to provide all their HD channels is glorious 1280x1080i?" (obviously before E* further downrezzed all HD channels to 1120x1080i)
Why is it that people complain about having to mount an "ugly" and "archaic" UHF/VHF antenna on their rooftop, yet don't think twice about mounting 2 or 3 flying saucers?
Why is is that people will refer to the old reliable UHF/VHF antenna as being "a relic of the past", yet live their lives hard-wired to the local cable company...while singing the praises of their wireless cell phones and wireless home network? Folks, an OTA antenna is just as modern today as it was 60 years ago...it's a wireless video reception device! I say pull the plug on all LIL an HD LIL before it's too late.
The reason this hasn't happened is that no one is willing to step up to the plate and commit to true HD. They all want to leave their options open to provide volume of HD with reduced resolution. Can you imagine someone making a pitch like the above and then backing off? Irate customers would be leaving in droves...HDTVFanAtic said:
There aren't enough true HD videophiles to support an increased cost with reduced volume system. Voom would be the closest to this goal and they managed only 40,000 subscribers before they pulled the plug.
The only thing we can hope for is technology advancements that can get significantly more output from existing bandwidth.
Local stations - reclaim that bandwidth!
I have conflicting feelings about local reception.
Where I live, I watched local stations on an outdoor antenna, and thought it was fine.
When I got sat and found the locals were noise-free, I was much happier.
I've got a buddy in the Riverside, CA area, and he just can't get Los Angeles local stations at all.
He watches his on sat and is very happy.
Another buddy in the real OC has annoying interference with his reception from an attic-mounted antenna.
For some reason, he has lived with crappy reception for years (I could ring his neck!)
When he got sat, his picture quality for locals (regardless of how compressed it might be) went way up!
We would all be better off with national west coast feeds (the Los Angeles ones ) than all the piddly local stations.
I'm not so sure the folks in San Diego nor San Francisco nor Seattle would agree.
HOWEVER, when I saw Dish putting up all the damned HiDef local feeds, I about blew a gasket!
That's a hell of a lot of bandwidth!
Their money would be better spent lobbying congress to allow national feeds and not rebroadcast every podunk station around the country.
I'm sure that as soon as I get my first HiDef TV set, I'll cry for that compressed sat feed of locals, too.
And I am close enough to get good local HD reception!
No wonder we have non-HD format broadcasts on sat.
I have conflicting feelings about local reception.
Where I live, I watched local stations on an outdoor antenna, and thought it was fine.
When I got sat and found the locals were noise-free, I was much happier.
I've got a buddy in the Riverside, CA area, and he just can't get Los Angeles local stations at all.
He watches his on sat and is very happy.
Another buddy in the real OC has annoying interference with his reception from an attic-mounted antenna.
For some reason, he has lived with crappy reception for years (I could ring his neck!)
When he got sat, his picture quality for locals (regardless of how compressed it might be) went way up!
We would all be better off with national west coast feeds (the Los Angeles ones
) than all the piddly local stations.I'm not so sure the folks in San Diego nor San Francisco nor Seattle would agree.
HOWEVER, when I saw Dish putting up all the damned HiDef local feeds, I about blew a gasket!
That's a hell of a lot of bandwidth!
Their money would be better spent lobbying congress to allow national feeds and not rebroadcast every podunk station around the country.
I'm sure that as soon as I get my first HiDef TV set, I'll cry for that compressed sat feed of locals, too.
And I am close enough to get good local HD reception!
No wonder we have non-HD format broadcasts on sat.
Last edited:
riffjim4069 said:
What about much of the older material being converted to HD that only supports 1440 scanlines? So that isn't true HD?
The hyperbole is the over-the-top statements as a reaction to "HD-lite" content, and the idle threats are the folks who are saying they are going to leave their provider unless true HD is delivered.
What about the use of video processors and video scalers since a lot of HD/ED/SD content doesn't really conform to the gold standard being discussed here anyway?
I remember one of the Dish Techs Dave Kummer telling us at a meeting a few years ago that Dish would pass-through whatever signal resolution & aspect ratio the programmer was using. At Team Summit this year I asked why some channels were not @ full HD resolution & if there had been a policy change. We were told no there had not been any policy change requarding downrezzing HD. They say
that the programmers & Dish do not have all the Encoding equipment installed to provide full Rez & this time but they are working on it.
You can draw any assumption you want
that the programmers & Dish do not have all the Encoding equipment installed to provide full Rez & this time but they are working on it.
You can draw any assumption you want
If the DBS providers are going to put up a digital signal for each of the locals they carry in 2009, when the local stations all must drop analog, they're going to need some more satellites, and we'll need some super-duper dishes to get them all.
Currently, they're putting up to 12 SD analog channels/transponder and up to 4 HD digital channels/transponder. That means they'll need 4 times the number of transponders for locals than they're now using. Even allowing for some improvement in compression for the MPEG-4 encoders, I'm betting that they'll still need twice the number of transponders for locals in 2009
Currently, they're putting up to 12 SD analog channels/transponder and up to 4 HD digital channels/transponder. That means they'll need 4 times the number of transponders for locals than they're now using. Even allowing for some improvement in compression for the MPEG-4 encoders, I'm betting that they'll still need twice the number of transponders for locals in 2009
I remember one of the Dish Techs Dave Kummer telling us at a meeting a few years ago that Dish would pass-through whatever signal resolution & aspect ratio the programmer was using. At Team Summit this year I asked why some channels were not @ full HD resolution & if there had been a policy change. We were told no there had not been any policy change requarding downrezzing HD. They say
that the programmers & Dish do not have all the Encoding equipment installed to provide full Rez & this time but they are working on it.
You can draw any assumption you want
that the programmers & Dish do not have all the Encoding equipment installed to provide full Rez & this time but they are working on it.
You can draw any assumption you want
Of course, the Washington DC area just completed a multi-year, 10 billion dollar highway upgrade that was supposed to alleviate rush hour traffic. But the traffic volume increased faster than the scheduled upgrades. The bandwidth problem will only get worse over the next 2-3 years as HD becomes mainstream. Even the Lifetime Channels is going to come out with an HD channels to keep up with the others. I don't see this problem going away until D* and E* merge or when pigs fly (and not the cable pig)!CU2000 said:
For years now I've been peeved by the government's protection of local stations.
I think E* and D* should be allowed to provide the national nets, perhaps providing a set out of each time zone for regional flavor, and never bother with providing any other locals.
For example, provide NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX out of New York City, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. Provide the national PBS feed and the minor networks with East and West feeds.
Provide at least one set in HD.
This would be less than 30 channels total.
My guess is that this would meet the needs of about 90% or more of their subs. People wanting their specific locals could get them via cable or OTA.
This would pretty much eliminate the whole spotbeam requirement and return a ton of bandwidth to both E* and D*. Of course it would have been nice if this ruling had been made back around 2000, before so much was invested in spotbeams.
I would be thrilled to have these options.
I think E* and D* should be allowed to provide the national nets, perhaps providing a set out of each time zone for regional flavor, and never bother with providing any other locals.
For example, provide NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX out of New York City, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. Provide the national PBS feed and the minor networks with East and West feeds.
Provide at least one set in HD.
This would be less than 30 channels total.
My guess is that this would meet the needs of about 90% or more of their subs. People wanting their specific locals could get them via cable or OTA.
This would pretty much eliminate the whole spotbeam requirement and return a ton of bandwidth to both E* and D*. Of course it would have been nice if this ruling had been made back around 2000, before so much was invested in spotbeams.
I would be thrilled to have these options.
CU2000 said:
Given that they have down-rezzed multiple channels from what they were providing, I'd say these statements are no longer in force.
Besides, they've been down-rezzing SD channels for years.
Tom Bombadil said:
Cable is not down rezzing the signal. They might choke the bandwidth, but so are the satellite companies.
I assume you've never seen political advertising?
You talk about what you want to talk about and ignore the rest.
grb said:
Wow...you mean like Dish saying to "don't feed the PIG?"
I pay $49 for cable with the digital tiers, SHO-HD, HBO-HD, HD tiers, Sports Tiers etc etc and Dish charges me almost twice as much.
Or "how much better the picture is on Directv than cable" that they fought the cable companies with?
Sure, Irate customers would leave in droves if they backed off those promises - NOT.
riffjim4069 said:I am not going to argue my point because I am well aware that people have strong feelings about LIL, but IMO satellite providers should not be in the business of wasting valuable bandwidth providing LIL and HD LIL. With the notable exception of providing East/West coast feeds for those who do qualify, and are truly deserving of DNS, the great majority of the American population can receive their locals just fine with an OTA antenna solution or lifeline cable. Granted, the OTA solution may cost you $200-$500 (not a simple pair of rabbit ears, and perhaps multiple antennas and filters), but with a little effort reliable reception can be achieved. Likewise, lifeline cable is often an option in many localities.
Adding 10 more DMAs to the mix will only expedite E*'s downward spiral down the path of HD-Lite, and drive a lot of DishHD customers toward FiOS and OTA only in the coming months. I can see the day coming when someone says, "Hey, remember back in the day when E* used to provide all their HD channels is glorious 1280x1080i?" (obviously before E* further downrezzed all HD channels to 1120x1080i)
Why is it that people complain about having to mount an "ugly" and "archaic" UHF/VHF antenna on their rooftop, yet don't think twice about mounting 2 or 3 flying saucers?
Why is is that people will refer to the old reliable UHF/VHF antenna as being "a relic of the past", yet live their lives hard-wired to the local cable company...while singing the praises of their wireless cell phones and wireless home network? Folks, an OTA antenna is just as modern today as it was 60 years ago...it's a wireless video reception device! I say pull the plug on all LIL an HD LIL before it's too late.
If you look at sub rates, you would know that Directv and Dish DID NOT TAKE OFF until they offered local stations via satellite.
