View Full Version : Any chance of HD being standard anytime soon?
mogulman
09-23-09, 02:41 PM
I was just thinking with OTA being digital now. OTA being almost entirely HD and more and more shows being HD.
Do you think it's reasonable for companies like Directv charging for HD service, or should the service include HD? Everytime I see the HD charge on my bill it annoys me as I think HD should be standard service at this time.
I had Netflix and switched to Blockbuster because it included Bluray service. I would switch or stay with a video service provider based on this.
It seems like a lot of people have HD TVs these days. Shouldn't HD service be the only offering? I'm not saying it would be cheaper or more expensive. Just wondering when they might eliminate having standard service without HD.
I was just thinking with OTA being digital now. OTA being almost entirely HD and more and more shows being HD.
Do you think it's reasonable for companies like Directv charging for HD service, or should the service include HD? Everytime I see the HD charge on my bill it annoys me as I think HD should be standard service at this time.
I had Netflix and switched to Blockbuster because it included Bluray service. I would switch or stay with a video service provider based on this.
It seems like a lot of people have HD TVs these days. Shouldn't HD service be the only offering? I'm not saying it would be cheaper or more expensive. Just wondering when they might eliminate having standard service without HD.
I think the likelihood of DirecTV dropping $10 off the bills of the majority of their customers is pretty slim. They may add it into the package price (like they did with locals) or something similar.
mogulman
09-23-09, 02:46 PM
True.. but at some point if the networks all broadcast in HD, they will be actually spending more technology manipulating the signal into SD.
I guess for Directv that will still reduce their bandwidth from the Sats..
Probably Cable would have to do it first.
rudeney
09-23-09, 03:09 PM
I agree with Ken - it will likely evolve to where they just include it in the package, but of course that will mean a total revamp of packages. But they've done that before, so it should not be a big deal.
LarryFlowers
09-23-09, 03:10 PM
I was just thinking with OTA being digital now. OTA being almost entirely HD and more and more shows being HD.
Do you think it's reasonable for companies like Directv charging for HD service, or should the service include HD? Everytime I see the HD charge on my bill it annoys me as I think HD should be standard service at this time.
I had Netflix and switched to Blockbuster because it included Bluray service. I would switch or stay with a video service provider based on this.
It seems like a lot of people have HD TVs these days. Shouldn't HD service be the only offering? I'm not saying it would be cheaper or more expensive. Just wondering when they might eliminate having standard service without HD.
Some stations may never be HD. They will be digital, but perhaps not HD. Even now the percentage of true HD programming is very low.
As to the fee, I expect that at somepoint it will be rolled into the general subscription price, but not anytime soon. DirecTV has a rather large bill coming due... it's called D12.
dishrich
09-23-09, 03:12 PM
True.. but at some point if the networks all broadcast in HD, they will be actually spending more technology manipulating the signal into SD.
Since cable systems will probably NOT be HD only for QUITE awhile, the cable network feeds will continue to have separate SD & HD feeds as well. So, D* will NOT have to even worry about this.
David MacLeod
09-23-09, 03:13 PM
I agree with Ken - it will likely evolve to where they just include it in the package, but of course that will mean a total revamp of packages. But they've done that before, so it should not be a big deal.
they had one before, the hd dvr package.
JeffBowser
09-23-09, 03:29 PM
It's a good point. It's getting to where HD is no longer bleeding edge, nor a surprising find. I disagree with Mr.Flowers about the percentage. My wife and I were remarking last night at how tiny the percentage of what we watch is still in SD. It wasn't so long ago that it was 50-50 that you'd catch the football game in HD. Now it's a stunning surprise if you don't, and usually only on low-end college games. Even game shows are going HD - Survivor for one. It was Biggest Loser my wife was noticing last night that was still in SD.
rudeney
09-23-09, 03:40 PM
It's a good point. It's getting to where HD is no longer bleeding edge...Even game shows are going HD - Survivor for one. It was Biggest Loser my wife was noticing last night that was still in SD.
But then again, do we really want to see all that flab in HD? :lol:
dodge boy
09-23-09, 05:10 PM
But then again, do we really want to see all that flab in HD? :lol:
Watch it, I resemble that comment :)
hdtvfan0001
09-23-09, 05:16 PM
But then again, do we really want to see all that flab in HD? :lol:
There's already a whole new cottage industry for "celebrities" addressing their shortcomings on any HD channel....including new camera filters, new makeup techniques, etc.
They claim TV in general adds 10 pounds to almost anyone's appearance, but for some, its more like 50 pounds. :D
BattleZone
09-23-09, 05:16 PM
DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems, and even most HD systems have plenty of SD boxes still on them. And the number of SD-TVs still in daily use is in the tens of millions.
Just like color didn't "obsolete" black and white TVs overnight, neither will HD obsolete SDTVs for another 5+ years.
cartrivision
09-23-09, 05:50 PM
True.. but at some point if the networks all broadcast in HD, they will be actually spending more technology manipulating the signal into SD.
Any cost differential between supplying a HD channel vs. an SD channel lies more in the increased bandwidth required to deliver the HD signal versus the SD signal than any cost of having to down-rez an HD signal to SD.
hdtvfan0001
09-23-09, 05:54 PM
DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems, and even most HD systems have plenty of SD boxes still on them. And the number of SD-TVs still in daily use is in the tens of millions.
Just like color didn't "obsolete" black and white TVs overnight, neither will HD obsolete SDTVs for another 5+ years.
I'm not sure there is any valid evidence to support your statement that "DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems"....
cartrivision
09-23-09, 06:03 PM
Since cable systems will probably NOT be HD only for QUITE awhile, the cable network feeds will continue to have separate SD & HD feeds as well. So, D* will NOT have to even worry about this.
The reason that they need separate HD and SD feeds is because of all the SD-only DirecTV receivers out there. If every receiver in every home was HD capable, they could turn off all of the SD feeds and then just use the HD feeds to supply their "SD customers" by locking those HD receivers to output only SD. All the SD feeds that are mirrors of the HD version of the channel are a big wast of bandwidth, but that wasteful duplication is necessary for now because just instantly swapping out every SD receiver for one that could receive the HD broadcasts would be cost prohibitive.
cartrivision
09-23-09, 06:09 PM
I'm not sure there is any valid evidence to support your statement that "DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems"....
The last I heard from DirecTV on this matter, I think that they said that about 60% of new installs were HD installs. It wasn't clear whether that meant 60% of all equipment installed was HD receivers & DVRs, or that 60% of homes installed included at least one HD receiver/DVR.
I'd like to see some numbers of what percentage of all installed equipment is HD vs. SD.
BattleZone
09-23-09, 06:24 PM
The last I heard from DirecTV on this matter, I think that they said that about 60% of new installs were HD installs. It wasn't clear whether that meant 60% of all equipment installed was HD receivers & DVRs, or that 60% of homes installed included at least one HD receiver/DVR.
I'd like to see some numbers of what percentage of all installed equipment is HD vs. SD.
While I'd say 50-60% of the new installs my company does are HD, meaning there's at least one HD receiver, if you look at receiver count, the majority of the receivers being activated are SD receivers. This week, one office has gone through 120+ D12s, 31 R15s, 5 R23s and 29 HR22s. And that percentage is roughly correct for other offices, though the scale may be different depending on number of techs.
Again, if you look at these by the job, then a small majority of the jobs are HD, but that just means that at least one of X-number of TVs is getting an HD-capable receiver.
From DirecTV's point of view, HD won't be "standard" until 100% of MPEG2 receivers have been replaced with HD-capable receivers, and the SD/MPEG2 duplicate channels can be taken down and that bandwidth reallocated. IMO, we're about 5 years away from that happening. I'd guess that there are 40,000,000+ SD-only receivers in active use right now.
I would settle for a HD only package....
Do you think it's reasonable for companies like Directv charging for HD service, or should the service include HD? Everytime I see the HD charge on my bill it annoys me as I think HD should be standard service at this time.
I think D* take the approach of only charging HD viewers for HD service, rather than all its customers. And that makes sense since last year only 35% of people even owned an HDTV, and of those only half subscribed to HD service (many not knowing they even needed it, thinking the HDTV was all they needed to be viewing in HD).
The latest numbers show for the first time over half of Americans own an HDTV, but only 69% of them subscribe to HD service. So there's still a long way to go before even half of America is getting HD service from cable or satellite.
http://www.multichannel.com/blog/BIT_RATE/20781-53_of_Americans_Have_an_HDTV_Survey.php?q=percenta ge+of+HD
HerntDawg
09-23-09, 07:36 PM
I would settle for a HD only package....
That would be cool, it would give me an excuse to upgrade to new tv's. :)
dpeters11
09-23-09, 08:24 PM
It's a good point. It's getting to where HD is no longer bleeding edge, nor a surprising find. I disagree with Mr.Flowers about the percentage. My wife and I were remarking last night at how tiny the percentage of what we watch is still in SD. It wasn't so long ago that it was 50-50 that you'd catch the football game in HD. Now it's a stunning surprise if you don't, and usually only on low-end college games. Even game shows are going HD - Survivor for one. It was Biggest Loser my wife was noticing last night that was still in SD.
I'm still waiting for Amazing Race. One of my last SD programs except for BBC America and the occasional PBS.
Shades228
09-23-09, 08:39 PM
I'm not sure there is any valid evidence to support your statement that "DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems"....
Until additional receivers are HD instead of standard that are free they will always install more SD receivers than HD receivers. With 4 standards fee per order I would say that it's accurate. DirecTV has never posted numbers like that so we will never know true numbers but I bet any tech could tell you that they install more SD by far than HD.
Until additional receivers are HD instead of standard that are free they will always install more SD receivers than HD receivers. With 4 standards fee per order I would say that it's accurate. DirecTV has never posted numbers like that so we will never know true numbers but I bet any tech could tell you that they install more SD by far than HD.
EXACTLY
The main prohibiting factor isn't the $10/mo for service, it's the upfront cost for the equipment. $10 covers the whole account, $10 amongst 5 or 6 IRD's isn't hard to swallow, but $99 per IRD at startup will dissuade even the biggest spender. They don't need to worry about the access fee, it's the equipment cost that prevents more HD installs.
Kansas Zephyr
09-23-09, 09:09 PM
Until additional receivers are HD instead of standard that are free they will always install more SD receivers than HD receivers. With 4 standards fee per order I would say that it's accurate. DirecTV has never posted numbers like that so we will never know true numbers but I bet any tech could tell you that they install more SD by far than HD.
Well...the key here is MPEG4 capable IRDs...not SD versus HD.
One day the "free" SD IRDs will become MPEG2/MPEG4, that simply down-convert HD channels, to SD...and after they replace the all current MPEG2 only IRDs in the field...then D* can dump the SD channels.
I'd make a very wild guess that's at least a decade away...with the number of SD subs out there.
BattleZone
09-24-09, 08:07 AM
Remember that in another year, things are going to look very different. DirecTV is planning on a whole-home DVR and small, cheap client boxes for most installs. That will allow all boxes in the home to have HD capability. Likely the standalone receivers will be available for those who specifically want them, but most folks will get the whole home solution.
I agree that we are years away from HD only, or all HD, and I think the estimate of 5 years is conservative, as far as eliminating mepg2 receivers.
With regard to charging for HD, let me point out how the telephone company made the transition from rotary dial to touch tone. They charged an extra fee each month to have touch tone service, even after they reached a point where it actually cost them more to provide rotary dial service. Why? because people were paying it. It is also worth noting that most phone companies still support rotary dial service, something most people consider totally obsolete. I think SD television service will be much the same.
With regard to charging for HD, let me point out how the telephone company made the transition from rotary dial to touch tone. They charged an extra fee each month to have touch tone service, even after they reached a point where it actually cost them more to provide rotary dial service. Why? because people were paying it. It is also worth noting that most phone companies still support rotary dial service, something most people consider totally obsolete. I think SD television service will be much the same.
Not to get off topic, but I have 2 rotary phones hooked up to the phone system in my house.
While I'd say 50-60% of the new installs my company does are HD, meaning there's at least one HD receiver, if you look at receiver count, the majority of the receivers being activated are SD receivers. This week, one office has gone through 120+ D12s, 31 R15s, 5 R23s and 29 HR22s. And that percentage is roughly correct for other offices, though the scale may be different depending on number of techs.
Again, if you look at these by the job, then a small majority of the jobs are HD, but that just means that at least one of X-number of TVs is getting an HD-capable receiver.
From DirecTV's point of view, HD won't be "standard" until 100% of MPEG2 receivers have been replaced with HD-capable receivers, and the SD/MPEG2 duplicate channels can be taken down and that bandwidth reallocated. IMO, we're about 5 years away from that happening. I'd guess that there are 40,000,000+ SD-only receivers in active use right now.
R23s??:confused:
cartrivision
09-24-09, 06:26 PM
It is also worth noting that most phone companies still support rotary dial service, something most people consider totally obsolete. I think SD television service will be much the same.
But that's not what's being discussed. All of DirecTV's HD broadcasts and HD receivers/DVRs can already support hookups to SD televisions. In your phone analogy the rotary phone is the SD TV, not the SD DirecTV receiver or DVR. When DirecTV eventually stops installing MPEG2 SD receivers, and eventually stops broadcasting the duplicate SD channels, that doesn't mean that they will stop supporting SD televisions, or have no more SD customers.
Some time in the future though, DirecTV will be just like OTA broadcast TV is today... none of the major network broadcast TV stations in most markets broadcast an SD signal anymore. All of the viewers of those broadcast stations tune in to the one and only HD broadcast, whether they are SD viewers (with 20 year old TV sets) or HD viewers.
Mike Bertelson
09-24-09, 08:03 PM
I wonder how long it will take for the current crop of SDTVs to disappear. For that matter how long would it take for the number to be low enough to be insignificant?
I suspect that with cost of HDTVs it might be a few years (a decade or more?) before the number is low enough to say that HDTV is...well TV. :grin:
Mike
Shades228
09-24-09, 08:13 PM
Well...the key here is MPEG4 capable IRDs...not SD versus HD.
One day the "free" SD IRDs will become MPEG2/MPEG4, that simply down-convert HD channels, to SD...and after they replace the all current MPEG2 only IRDs in the field...then D* can dump the SD channels.
I'd make a very wild guess that's at least a decade away...with the number of SD subs out there.
The OP was asking about HD not MPEG-4. I can't ever see why an mpeg 4 standard receiver would be created. Look at the hassle with the R-22 now that they took out the HD lock.
They could convert everything to MPEG-4 now and require everyone to have HD equipment to get it but not have HD be the standard.
cartrivision
09-25-09, 01:26 AM
I wonder how long it will take for the current crop of SDTVs to disappear. For that matter how long would it take for the number to be low enough to be insignificant?
I suspect that with cost of HDTVs it might be a few years (a decade or more?) before the number is low enough to say that HDTV is...well TV. :grin:
Mike
It's going to be a lot sooner than that. It's almost impossible to find an SD TV in any store these days, but DirecTV's problem isn't the remaining households with SD TVs, its the installed base of MPEG2 SD DirecTV receivers and DVRs, and that number isn't going to start getting significantly smaller until DirecTV starts installing only MPEG4 equipment.
But that's not what's being discussed. All of DirecTV's HD broadcasts and HD receivers/DVRs can already support hookups to SD televisions. In your phone analogy the rotary phone is the SD TV, not the SD DirecTV receiver or DVR.
It was really neither, rather a point that income/profit is what is the driving decision. Although if I had to equate in the analogy, in this case it would be to the mpeg2 receiver or dvr, not the tv. That is the technology that has to be replaced, and there are tens of millions of them out there. That cost (to replace mpeg2 equipment) will be the determining factor in how rapidly it is obsoleted.
cartrivision
09-25-09, 01:42 AM
The OP was asking about HD not MPEG-4. I can't ever see why an mpeg 4 standard receiver would be created. Look at the hassle with the R-22 now that they took out the HD lock.
The standard receiver will without question eventually be a MPEG4 receiver, because that will allow DirecTV to eventually eliminate all of the duplicate MPEG2 channel broadcasts. How fast that happens depends on the cost of getting every customer equipped with those standard MPEG4 recievers (or better) vs. the cost of the satellites and other costs associated with providing more than 100 SD duplicate channels.
They could convert everything to MPEG-4 now and require everyone to have HD equipment to get it but not have HD be the standard.
That's all that's ever going to happen. There will probably always be at least a few people watching in SD and a few SD-only channels, but they will all still require MPEG4 equipment to provide that SD viewing experience.
cartrivision
09-25-09, 02:49 AM
It was really neither, rather a point that income/profit is what is the driving decision. Although if I had to equate in the analogy, in this case it would be to the mpeg2 receiver or dvr, not the tv.
That isn't really a good analogy. The customer controls and provides the TV (SD or HD) or the phone (rotary or touch tone) and the service provider controls and provides the hardware necessary to interface and work with the customer's equipment. All of the phone company's equipment now supports touch tone while still allowing a customer to hook up an old rotary phone, and eventually all of DirecTV's equipment will support MPEG4 HD while still having an interface that allows a customer to to hook up an old SD TV.
That is the technology that has to be replaced, and there are tens of millions of them out there. That cost (to replace mpeg2 equipment) will be the determining factor in how rapidly it is obsoleted.
Right, but like the telco's touch tone compatible switching equipment, the deployment and replacement cost of the MPEG2 equipment falls largely on DirecTV, so for the most part that cost tradeoff is being made by DirecTV, driven by the cost vs. benefit for DirecTV to maintain or replace a system utilizing some MPEG2 receivers, not by a customer's decision to keep their old SD TV or subscribe only to SD service. The DirecTV system will go all MPEG4 before their customer base goes all HD, and the former will happen long before the latter does, and it will be based on DirecTV's cost to do so.
bobnielsen
09-25-09, 08:50 AM
I'm surprised that they are still providing MPEG2-only receivers. I guess the manufacturing cost of the H21/H23 hasn't come down enough to make it the default standard. Once they do that it will still take several years to swap out all the older equipment so they can broadcast everything in MPEG4. Then they could drop the SD duplicates and pick up all of the 101 bandwidth.
rudeney
09-25-09, 09:12 AM
I'm surprised that they are still providing MPEG2-only receivers. I guess the manufacturing cost of the H21/H23 hasn't come down enough to make it the default standard.
I don't think it has as much to do with the cost of the MPEG4 receivers as it does the fact that they have so many MPEG2 receivers out there that they can keep re-leasing and raking in the cash. I would not at all be surprised to hear that they have quite manufacturing MPEG2 receivers, and are just recycling what is already out there. I do wonder just how many subscribers are getting "new in the box" R15/16's and D-series receivers these days.
mogulman
09-25-09, 10:27 AM
I wasn't really talking about forcing customers to upgrade their TVs to HD. That can take whatever time it needs. I was just talking about providing a single set of channels. All the HD receivers can send signal using composite or S-Video to a regular TV even with HD programming.
Like others have said.. It's just a matter of them providing a single set of set top boxes (HD capable or not depending on your TV) and having programming packages that don't charge different fees for HD.
I hadn't thought about the Mpeg2 stuff. I didn't even know channels were still using MPeg2.
I'm sure they have to be thinking about, this. I guess its just weird for me to see the HD fee knowing that most of the programming (70+%) we watch is local channels and local OTA is all HD.
Not until a major competitor starts doing it.
bobcamp1
09-25-09, 11:00 AM
I hadn't thought about the Mpeg2 stuff. I didn't even know channels were still using MPeg2.
I'm sure they have to be thinking about, this. I guess its just weird for me to see the HD fee knowing that most of the programming (70+%) we watch is local channels and local OTA is all HD.
SD will be around for at least 10 more years. Can you imagine how many customers' setups would have to be completely redone in order to transition them to MPEG4? Just let the old technology slowly fade away, and when less than 5% have SD, then offer a free upgrade.
Interestingly enough, only the sports events we occasionally watch are in HD. Everything else is in SD. The CHANNELS are in HD, but the CONTENT is not. So why bother paying the $10 fee?
Tom Robertson
09-25-09, 11:05 AM
Not until a major competitor starts doing it.
Even then. The competitor needs to get some competitive advantage from it. Dish is becoming all MPEG4, but that isn't a competitive advantage for them. Users don't care.
DIRECTV has LOTS of bandwidth and launching a satellite is loads cheaper than replacing 40M MPEG2 receivers.
Customers will organically migrate to HD and off SD receivers. DIRECTV won't have to force or push anyone for a long time, just let it evolve on its own.
Cheers,
Tom
Even then. The competitor needs to get some competitive advantage from it. Dish is becoming all MPEG4, but that isn't a competitive advantage for them. Users don't care.
DIRECTV has LOTS of bandwidth and launching a satellite is loads cheaper than replacing 40M MPEG2 receivers.
Customers will organically migrate to HD and off SD receivers. DIRECTV won't have to force or push anyone for a long time, just let it evolve on its own.
Cheers,
Tom
I thought the point of the thread was when will D* quit charging extra for HD. Even if D* still has 40M MPEG2 receivers, that doesn't prevent them from saying there is no extra monthly charge for HD programming.
The moment a competitor begins to erode D*'s market share because they're offering "free" HD, I suspect D* will follow suit.
Tom Robertson
09-25-09, 11:48 AM
I thought the point of the thread was when will D* quit charging extra for HD. Even if D* still has 40M MPEG2 receivers, that doesn't prevent them from saying there is no extra monthly charge for HD programming.
The moment a competitor begins to erode D*'s market share because they're offering "free" HD, I suspect D* will follow suit.
:) Hokay, point taken. (And it's a good one too.) :)
That will be an interesting evolution. And we'll all be here to watch. :)
Cheers,
Tom
mystic7
09-25-09, 11:53 AM
Where I live, Directv still charges me extra for full color programming ;)
Mike Bertelson
09-25-09, 11:55 AM
Where I live, Directv still charges me extra for full color programming ;)Ummmm....what? :ewww:
Otherwise you get B&W? :grin:
I also think another point is being overlooked, though maybe not as problematic as converting everyone to MPEG-4 receivers, but nevertheless significant, is that to turn off the Ku band SD duplicates means the end of the ubiquitous Phase I round dish pointed at 101. As everyone would have to be upgraded to a Ka/Ku ODU dish to receive the HD signals on Ka band.
So besides the additional cost of this, I would imagine there are many who still prefer the small size and unobtrusiveness of the small round 18x20 in. dish and would not be happy with the much larger and not as aesthetically pleasing Ka/Ku band ODU on their property.
In fact that was one of the primary selling points of DBS service over the C-band BUD since it's inception. The promise of all those crystal clear digital channels received on small "pizza-sized" dishes.
Movieman
09-25-09, 06:50 PM
I hope that this will be standard. I am holding out on getting any new tv's (unless they break) until broadcasters start going 1080P. I know I will be waiting for some time. As far as charging for HD they already have plans where the charge is already included.
I hope that this will be standard. I am holding out on getting any new tv's (unless they break) until broadcasters start going 1080P. I know I will be waiting for some time. As far as charging for HD they already have plans where the charge is already included.
I'll say! 1080p over the air is not possible without a complete restructuring of the allotted bandwidth, or some sort of breakthrough in compression technology. Basically, 1080p OTA is "unlikely" for a very, very long time.
Same problem for cable and perhaps worse for satellite. Perhaps fiber optic cable to the home may do it for cable. Satellite it is completely different issue.
I'm not sure the investment in infrastructure for 1080p is worth it. I can't imagine what the payback cycle would be like.
I don't have any SD stuff left in the house, but the HD equipment is all 720p. I've not been even remotely motivated to buy a new TV with 1080p. I've seen it (1080p) as good as it can be, and it is only marginally better than 720p. I can see the difference, but I sure wouldn't pay a premium to get it (especially since it is only readily available to me on Blu Ray.)
So, I, like you, am waiting...just for something different....my current HD TVs to bite the dust.:)
I'll bet I'm done waiting (for my TVs to fail/lose brightness), before you are done waiting for infrastructure improvements to get you 1080p.:) (comment meant in fun, not to be taken seriously!)
xmetalx
09-26-09, 01:35 AM
I'm not sure there is any valid evidence to support your statement that "DirecTV is still installing a huge number of SD-only systems"....
I know, I know, i'm quoting all the way from pg1. Regardless though, there is plenty of evidence to show that D* is still installing MPEG2 recievers. If you don't believe me, call up an installation tech, or an activation CSR and ask them how often they activate SD recievers.
gary900
09-26-09, 03:03 AM
I hope that this will be standard. I am holding out on getting any new tv's (unless they break) until broadcasters start going 1080P. I know I will be waiting for some time. As far as charging for HD they already have plans where the charge is already included.
For many years, my wife and I viewed TV on a very old 32” Panasonic CRT TV that just refused to die with Ch**r cable and used a Sony VCR to tape programs. As HDTV became available I foamed at the mouth to get one. However, my wife was always commenting about “how great the picture looked on our TV”. Numerous trips to the stores that sold and displayed HDTV failed to impress her about HDTV. Her thing was that as long as our old TV still had such a “great picture” she could not justify purchase of an expensive HDTV set. Sigh.
Last January a miracle happened. My wife turned on the old faithful Panny TV, it made a snapping sound, smoked from the back and then nothing. Dead.
This was one of the better moments of my life. The old SD set died, and according to me no chance to fix it. Too old, no parts available. (grin).
So, from where we were I went to a 52” Sony XBR6 HDTV and switched to D**** with two HR22-100’s and HDTV packages. I also replaced my upstairs bedroom gazillion year old SD TV with a Sharp 32” LCD HDTV connected to the second HR22-100 receiver. Also, I ran CAT5e Ethernet cable from my router to each of the receivers to take advantage of VOD, Media Share and Directv2PC. This will also be used for MRV. To increase the HD experience I also added and surround sound system and Blue Ray play to the 52” TV.
My wife will reluctantly agree that the picture and sound are now “pretty good” but I think that secretly she is impressed but does not want to admit it.
I guess that the point I am trying to get across is that HDTV is a giant leap forward, as color was to black and white. It may take a while, but eventually it will be the standard.
I think 3d TV (without having to wear special glasses) and paper thin OLED TVs will be the next big things in TV viewing. :D
Brennok
09-26-09, 10:45 AM
I must say this was one of the perks of trying Fios. They don't have a seperate HD package and it is included. While it is true I am still only using SD sets, I was already tired of center-cut programming on the SD channels. I now record everything in HD.
The extra fees on DTV for HD programming and well lack of Tivo is what stopped me from just upgrading to HD on DTV.
I will be upgrading to at least one HD set in the next few months if I can find a good deal on a 58"-65" Plasma.
I'll say! 1080p over the air is not possible without a complete restructuring of the allotted bandwidth, or some sort of breakthrough in compression technology. Basically, 1080p OTA is "unlikely" for a very, very long time.
1080p/60, sure. But the 1080p/24 movie standard would actually take up a smaller amount of bandwidth than the 1080i/60 standard already used for broadcast. The problem is that many HD sets don't have the capacity to decode the 1080p/24 standard, so there's little motivation for broadcasters to send out signals they know can't be received*.
* -- Unlike during the DTV conversion period when broadcasters knew that many of their signals couldn't be picked up but also knew that an ever-increasing number of sets were out there, they now know most people have already made their final decisions on how they will watch digital broadcasts and are highly unlikely to change gear again just to receive signals they presumed their equipment would display when they bought it. Mandating support for 1080p/24 in sets going forward would be helpful, but it could take a decade before the installed base of sets is overwhelmingly capable of displaying such broadcasts.
Shades228
09-26-09, 03:21 PM
The standard receiver will without question eventually be a MPEG4 receiver, because that will allow DirecTV to eventually eliminate all of the duplicate MPEG2 channel broadcasts. How fast that happens depends on the cost of getting every customer equipped with those standard MPEG4 recievers (or better) vs. the cost of the satellites and other costs associated with providing more than 100 SD duplicate channels.
That's all that's ever going to happen. There will probably always be at least a few people watching in SD and a few SD-only channels, but they will all still require MPEG4 equipment to provide that SD viewing experience.
You missed the point. They will no longer have a SD or HD receiver they will just have a non DVR. This has been on their agenda for a long time. They will not make a dedicated Mpeg 4 standard and maintain a standard HD receiver as well. Hence my reference to the R-22 where they tried it and it didn't work.
cartrivision
09-26-09, 06:28 PM
You missed the point. They will no longer have a SD or HD receiver they will just have a non DVR. This has been on their agenda for a long time. They will not make a dedicated Mpeg 4 standard and maintain a standard HD receiver as well. Hence my reference to the R-22 where they tried it and it didn't work.
I think that we are both saying the same thing, but it hard to tell from how you have worded what you are trying to say above.
BTW, I don't know what makes you think that the R22 "didn't work". It worked perfectly well and is still in service, mostly in markets where SD customers have locals that are only available in MPEG4. It might be too costly right now for DirecTV to use it for all SD DVR installs, but it certainly works perfectly well for such an application.
BattleZone
09-27-09, 08:36 AM
The R22 was discontinued due to the economy. The original plan was to phase out the R16 and install only R22s, but with the economy, and given that the R22 has no RF output (being nothing more than a re-badged HR21) and thus requires a modulator to work with many older TVs, it was decided to discontinue the R22 and go back to installing R16s as the SD-DVR. Areas that require MPEG4 receivers to get their locals will now get an HR2x if they order a DVR, and will just have no HD if they don't pay for HD service.
Honestly, it never really made sense to make the R22 as a separate model...
rudeney
09-27-09, 01:23 PM
The R22 was discontinued due to the economy.
I'm not arguing the truth of your claim, but do you have the facts to backup that statement? It seems to me that economically speaking, the R22 was a good idea. Leveraging economies of scale can greatly reduce the manufacturing costs and simplify everything from ordering to shipping.
BattleZone
09-27-09, 04:47 PM
DirecTV mentioned something about the move back to the R16 in an investors' call or announcement. Anyway, the cost of an R16 is apparently low enough to warrent its continued production, but it never made sense to make the R22, when it's exactly the same hardware as an HR21. And finally DirecTV is doing what they should have done in the beginning: use HR2x's and disable HD via software for those who don't subscribe. That *does* help to simplify the inventory.
IMO, by spring of next year, I'd bet DirecTV will drop the R16 entirely and just install HRs for folks who order a DVR. No inside knowledge; just my guess.
MIMOTech
09-27-09, 05:53 PM
The Transition to HD...
The SD/HD conversion issue is something that will around for a while. Major issues are:
1.) Number of SD/single sat dishes still in use.
2.) Number households with at least one HD display.
On issue 1 at some point DTV may have to start squeezing the number of channels down. That is begin eliminating channels in SD that have an HD duplicate. If you want that those channels you will have to upgrade to an RX capable of receiving the HD only version. Also if DTV starts broadcasting the HD channel on the SD counterpart in 16x9. Some cable companies are already doing this on some of their channels. People will be forced to upgrade if they don't like the small picture on their 4x3 TV. This will take time but you have to some how move the unmovable to this solution. They don't need new sets just receivers.
As for issue 2 as people move to 16x9 HD flat screens and this is well on it's way. You will notice, and I am sure you have most stores have 99% flat screens and maybe a few rear projection HD displays. I think it will be when we reach more then 50% penetration is when DTV will start its move to 100% HD.
When it does make that move then all the old band width will be converted to MPEG-4. And HD can let it belt out and digest all kinds of HD channels...
P
...On issue 1 at some point DTV may have to start squeezing the number of channels down. That is begin eliminating channels in SD that have an HD duplicate. If you want that those channels you will have to upgrade to an RX capable of receiving the HD only version.....
Well this may be too much of a brute force approach. Even with a long period of forewarning, to start turning off SD duplicates and thereby hope to coerce SD only subscribers to upgrade their dishes, receivers, and other auxiliary equipment without financial compensation would undoubtably anger and alienate many customers. Something any rational service provider in his right mind never wants to do. :nono2:
... Also if DTV starts broadcasting the HD channel on the SD counterpart in 16x9. Some cable companies are already doing this on some of their channels. People will be forced to upgrade if they don't like the small picture on their 4x3 TV. This will take time but you have to some how move the unmovable to this solution. They don't need new sets just receivers.
Now this more subtle course of trying to nudge subscribers off of MPEG-2 SD is worth considering, but there may be a technical problem here. For with the possible exception of the old Hughes HR10-250, I don't know if DirecTV's MPEG-2 receivers are capable of properly receiving a 16X9 formatted signal. I know that many are supposed to have the capability to receive and correctly display an anamorphic 16x9 signal squeezed into a 4:3 frame if DirecTV sets the flag properly in the stream, but I don't know if they can receive and process a native 16x9 program from the satellites much less then letterbox the output for a 4:3 set.
JoeTheDragon
09-27-09, 11:19 PM
can they start to move stuff like NFL ST to mpeg 4 only and give people free hardware upgrades.
is 2012 a go target time? same time analog cable is likey to be 100% gone for the big guys.
Direct tv can come out with 1 tuner mini drvs (no dvr fee) (does not even need a hard disk just put in some flash / ram.) that can have small live buffer and also use it for a MVR and VOD buffer as well and just move the old sd pepole to it and or a low cost mpeg 4 box.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.