well maybe you could pay Chuck 13 billion to buy e* and maybe you could do what you wantglennh73 said:
Would you sacrifice ESPN-2HD and UHD to have other HD channels in full resolution?
- Thread starter Ilya
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 5K
:devil:
This is an invalid premise. There are still plenty of transponders on Rainbow 1 yet to be used, once MPEG4 is in use plenty more bandwidth available.
glennh, your list 8-23 are there to fulfill FCC requirements for public interest programming. FCC requires that much bandwidth be used for public interest stuff.
glennh, your list 8-23 are there to fulfill FCC requirements for public interest programming. FCC requires that much bandwidth be used for public interest stuff.
glenn.. the local channel thing doesnt take up any space.. the lower numbers are actually the higer channel number.. its just the way its mapped into the reciver.. (the channel is upthere once not twice)
I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too. Some quick and crude numbers...
If I am counting correctly they are currently using 7 transponders for HD (with a couple more to come with the new channels). And they are running 3 channels at 15Mbps each. So, that's 315Mbps of bandwidth. And with the new channels I come up with anywhere between 25 and 28 HD channels (special events, nba, nfl). So, at 28 that works out to just over 11Mbps per channel. Way more than needed for full rez mpeg4.
If I am counting correctly they are currently using 7 transponders for HD (with a couple more to come with the new channels). And they are running 3 channels at 15Mbps each. So, that's 315Mbps of bandwidth. And with the new channels I come up with anywhere between 25 and 28 HD channels (special events, nba, nfl). So, at 28 that works out to just over 11Mbps per channel. Way more than needed for full rez mpeg4.
I want ESPN2 and Universal. I would, however, give up some of the silly Voom channels. I like about half Voom. The rest are useless and would offer great bandwidth and pure HD.
There's no point in speculating what channels to give up. As long as there are 210 DMAs worth of locals sitting out there with about 800 HD channels among them - bandwidth will continue to be scarce.
Yes!! Thank you for that info, Scott!Scott Greczkowski said:
As for the poll, as far as I'm concerned, they could drop Gallery, Ultra and HDNews and give us ESPN2-HD and UHD and I'd be fine with it.
I bet the number would be overwhelming in favor of true HD which includes ESPN2 and Universal, but drops a few VOOM channels like Ultra, Gameplay, and a couple more. So it would be the current HD Pak, ESPN2, Universal, and 11 channels of VOOM all in true HD.
And as others have noted, they could still add a few more true 1920 channels to this lineup, they have the transponders to do this. They can put three 1920 channels on a single transponder, possibly four once MPEG4 gets refined a bit.
And as others have noted, they could still add a few more true 1920 channels to this lineup, they have the transponders to do this. They can put three 1920 channels on a single transponder, possibly four once MPEG4 gets refined a bit.
Anybody seen "Network"...?
On the count of three, run to your window, throw it open and yell..."I'm mad as hell..."!
On the count of three, run to your window, throw it open and yell..."I'm mad as hell..."!
Gary Murrell said:who are the 35 that wanted HD-Lite ??
show yourselves
-Gary
HI, if it means getting espn2hd, I will be right here if you need me I am not running, sorry just my opinion!
