Should I have received 4k equipment

[GoBigRed79]

So I am a new DirecTV customer that had my service installed about 3 weeks ago. I did a Genie with three wireless clients for our secondary TV's. When I ordered I let the rep know I was responding to an insert that came with my new Sony 4k TV for an extra $10 off for 12 months. She congratulated me on my new TV, and the offer was added to my acct. She proceeded to take my order for new service. Now, the mistake I made was I really did not research the 4k requirements before ordering, I just knew DirecTV had some limited 4k services. So on the call placing the order I did not request specific equipment and the rep never informed me of the requirements, despite telling her at the onset that I just bought a new 4k TV.

So anyway the install day comes and I got called away at the last minute so only my wife was home when it was done. Everything was setup properly per the order placed and where I wanted it and my wife signed off on it. She said the installer never asked if any of our TV's were 4k. A couple of days later I got curious about the 4k offerings and could not find anything on the guide. So I googled it and that was when I discovered an HR-54 and 4k Client are required along with the higher programming package. We received an HR-44. Once again my fault for not doing my homework sooner.

Since I do have a 4k TV, I thought I would call DirecTV and let them know what was going on and see if they would do anything for me. Basically I have spoke to a couple of different reps and have been told that since 4k service was not noted on my order and we signed off on our install we would have to pay for the upgraded equipment to get 4k. So far nobody has budged on this. If I have to pay I am going to wait until my 2 year upgrade is up with the protection plan to see if they come out with a 4k Genie, as I don't care for the idea of my main TV being on a client anyway. But I guess I am asking if the reps are right and I am stuck with what I have unless I pay for the upgrades. Thanks.

 

[maestro7]

Your assumptions are correct. After having committed to your original portfolio of receivers, any changes now would require a new contract and likely higher monthlies due to the add-ons required.

In my opinion, I'd stick with what you've got, as it's going to be a few years before 4K is anywhere near as common-place as HD is now. Remember that most HD broadcasters aren't even to 1080p at this point, so that should give you an idea of the lay of the land.

 

[twizt3dsist3r]

we can only do correction orders within 14 days. unfortunately you need to pay full price for 4k now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[GoBigRed79]

we can only do correction orders within 14 days. unfortunately you need to pay full price for 4k now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Thanks. I am not too concerned right now as there is not a ton of content and I think it will be a while before broadcasters get up to speed on 4K. Hopefully by the time I have an upgrade they have a 4K Genie. That is the setup I would prefer anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbo]

Your assumptions are correct. After having committed to your original portfolio of receivers, any changes now would require a new contract and likely higher monthlies due to the add-ons required.

In my opinion, I'd stick with what you've got, as it's going to be a few years before 4K is anywhere near as common-place as HD is now. Remember that most HD broadcasters aren't even to 1080p at this point, so that should give you an idea of the lay of the land.

Broadcasters will not be doing 1080p, when time comes they will bounce right to 4k.

 

[raoul5788]

to Satelliteguys GoBigRed79!

You might try this link: https://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=27794

 

[Claude Greiner]

I have a 4K Tv with 4K equipment. Your really not missing that much.

Seriously I watched 4K for a few days when I first got it. Said "this is cool" and haven't had it on since December.

 

[Claude Greiner]

FYI the wireless clients are not 4K nor do they make a 4K version.

 

[GoBigRed79]

FYI the wireless clients are not 4K nor do they make a 4K version.

Yeah, I found that out after I dug into the issue. That was another reason I did not press to hard. Wireless or hardwire is not a huge deal for me on one TV, but I am not that crazy about my main TV being on a client. The clients are not bad and are fine for secondary TV's, but I prefer the server on my main TV.

 

[Blackloz]

I have a 4K Tv with 4K equipment. Your really not missing that much.

Seriously I watched 4K for a few days when I first got it. Said "this is cool" and haven't had it on since December.

How is the Upscaling on HD channels? I know it's more or less dependent upon the TV but in general is it a notable better picture? I'm going 4K in the next few weeks and don't plan on getting a 54 over my 44 anytime soon as I really only want 4K for BD, but wouldn't mind a nice upscaled picture with my HR44.

 

[AZ.]

How is the Upscaling on HD channels? I know it's more or less dependent upon the TV but in general is it a notable better picture? I'm going 4K in the next few weeks and don't plan on getting a 54 over my 44 anytime soon as I really only want 4K for BD, but wouldn't mind a nice upscaled picture with my HR44.

For this reason I bought a Sony over a Samsung.....I felt side by side with a HD feed I preferred the Sony up-scaling...
I will wait for direct to come out with there new solutions for 4k....so it may be a few years....I have streamed 4k...which was crisp!... But my speeds up here in the high desert arnt so great sometimes...

 

[GoBigRed79]

For this reason I bought a Sony over a Samsung.....I felt side by side with a HD feed I preferred the Sony up-scaling...
I will wait for direct to come out with there new solutions for 4k....so it may be a few years....I have streamed 4k...which was crisp!... But my speeds up here in the high desert arnt so great sometimes...

This was my experience as well. In my opinion Sony has the better upscale engine at this time. 4k streaming on Netflix is very good, just hope you don't have a data cap!.

 

[Jimbo]

For this reason I bought a Sony over a Samsung.....I felt side by side with a HD feed I preferred the Sony up-scaling...
I will wait for direct to come out with there new solutions for 4k....so it may be a few years....I have streamed 4k...which was crisp!... But my speeds up here in the high desert arnt so great sometimes...

Good call ....
From what I have seen, the Sony's have a very good Up Scaler, Provided you buy the higher end ones.
From what I have seen the Samsung are so so ... Great HD, but not as good 4k.

 

[maestro7]

Broadcasters will not be doing 1080p, when time comes they will bounce right to 4k.

The point I was making was not that any broadcaster was going to invest in 1080p, only that they are at 720p/1080i (depending on configuration).

Further, it's also not an issue of simply flipping a few switches (e.g.: software-based) to go from 720p to 4k. We're talking many millions of dollars per each broadcast facility to pretty much uproot 75% of their infrastructure to make this happen. This means switchers, CCUs, monitors, cabling (unless their cabling can handle the order-of-magnitude greater bandwidth and/or is correctly terminated, considering some aspects of 4k topology are still being worked out), and many other things.

I'm not in the industry, but I do have friends who are making purchasing decisions that I listen to on a frequent basis.

tl;dr: Moving to 4k for a broadcaster is still very much a "VHS vs. Beta" decision at this point, on top of infrastructure changes.

 

[GoBigRed79]

The point I was making was not that any broadcaster was going to invest in 1080p, only that they are at 720p/1080i (depending on configuration).

Further, it's also not an issue of simply flipping a few switches (e.g.: software-based) to go from 720p to 4k. We're talking many millions of dollars per each broadcast facility to pretty much uproot 75% of their infrastructure to make this happen. This means switchers, CCUs, monitors, cabling (unless their cabling can handle the order-of-magnitude greater bandwidth and/or is correctly terminated, considering some aspects of 4k topology are still being worked out), and many other things.

I'm not in the industry, but I do have friends who are making purchasing decisions that I listen to on a frequent basis.

tl;dr: Moving to 4k for a broadcaster is still very much a "VHS vs. Beta" decision at this point, on top of infrastructure changes.

I would agree. Broadcasters just spent a fortune moving from analog to digital broadcast and upgrading facilities for HD broadcast. My guess is for most of them the cost vs the benefit is not going to make sense for a long time. It's not like we are talking about what the jump from SD to HD was quality wise. My guess is 4k is going to be confided to streaming services, media players, and special events like we see now for a time.

 

[Jimbo]

The point I was making was not that any broadcaster was going to invest in 1080p, only that they are at 720p/1080i (depending on configuration).

Further, it's also not an issue of simply flipping a few switches (e.g.: software-based) to go from 720p to 4k. We're talking many millions of dollars per each broadcast facility to pretty much uproot 75% of their infrastructure to make this happen. This means switchers, CCUs, monitors, cabling (unless their cabling can handle the order-of-magnitude greater bandwidth and/or is correctly terminated, considering some aspects of 4k topology are still being worked out), and many other things.

I'm not in the industry, but I do have friends who are making purchasing decisions that I listen to on a frequent basis.

tl;dr: Moving to 4k for a broadcaster is still very much a "VHS vs. Beta" decision at this point, on top of infrastructure changes.

I agree with everything you said here ....

Did I say otherwise somewhere ?

 

[maestro7]

I would agree. Broadcasters just spent a fortune moving from analog to digital broadcast and upgrading facilities for HD broadcast. My guess is for most of them the cost vs the benefit is not going to make sense for a long time. It's not like we are talking about what the jump from SD to HD was quality wise. My guess is 4k is going to be confided to streaming services, media players, and special events like we see now for a time.

If it's true that more and more carriers (defined broadly as any company from DirecTV to Hulu) are going OTT (Over The Top) streaming for some number of programming packages in their respective portfolios, then yes, I'd say that the costs of going streaming might be less (or certainly competitive with) the move to full-on 4k.

Great observation, BTW. I hadn't put that particular "two-and-two" together.