Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

MPEG-4 on MPEG-2 receivers? (Not so much)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Michael P

Michael P

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,948 posts
Joined: Oct 27, 2004

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:25 PM

What I read here is...

When Dish starts broadcasting MPEG4, current customers with MPEG2-only receivers will not be cut off. They will continue to get all the channels they get today with no interruption.

New channels will be added in MPEG4, and the new receivers required to receive those channels will be both MPEG4 and MPEG2 so that once you are upgraded you will be able to receive all the new channels and all the old ones that are still in MPEG2.

What I didn't read, but have always assumed is...

Once they get all receivers in the field swapped by one method or another, they will eventually cut off all the MPEG2 and only be using MPEG4 across the board for all channels. But during the process of conversion they don't want to lose customers so they will keep both technologies active as long as they can.

Sometimes, telling people too much detailed information when they don't understand how things work anyway, just adds confusion where there didn't have to be any.

Give that man a cigar! I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Thee is no way current MPEG-2 receivers can process MPEG-4 streams. E* would have to either duplicate programming in both formats (not likely) or offer to swap receivers for those who want to subscribe to the new programming (read: the rest of the "VOOM Originals"). I'm willing to bet that E* will have a special offer that goes something llike this: A free MPEG-4 upgrade with a 1 year comittment to the VOOM originals.
An E* subscriber continuously since February 1997.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   rocatman

rocatman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 815 posts
Joined: Nov 27, 2003

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:40 PM

Let me throw another factor into this issue, QPSK versus 8PSK. I believe only the 311, 322, 522, 625, 811, 921 and 942 can deal with 8PSK.

#28 OFFLINE   digiblur

digiblur

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 106 posts
Joined: Jun 10, 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:42 PM

If the current receivers could do the MPEG4 they wouldn't have waited this long to crank up the MPEG4 nor would they have come out with the 411.

I bet the DishNet guys are reading this laughing their .........

#29 OFFLINE   olgeezer

olgeezer

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 1,833 posts
Joined: Dec 05, 2003

Posted 24 October 2005 - 03:43 PM

Let me throw another factor into this issue, QPSK versus 8PSK. I believe only the 311, 322, 522, 625, 811, 921 and 942 can deal with 8PSK.



And for non HD receivers, an OTA digital tuner would have to be added.

#30 Guest_gpflepsen_*

Guest_gpflepsen_*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 24 October 2005 - 05:29 PM

And for non HD receivers, an OTA digital tuner would have to be added.


Why? They don't have them now. What is the motivation for E* to do that instead of selling the LiL package?

#31 OFFLINE   rasheed

rasheed

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 296 posts
Joined: Sep 12, 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:07 PM

Why? They don't have them now. What is the motivation for E* to do that instead of selling the LiL package?


Because, you get no OTA guide data without buying the LiL package anyway.

Rasheed

#32 OFFLINE   MikeW

MikeW

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,551 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:33 PM

The image obviously states that the "NEW PRODUCT LINE" will have MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility. NOWHERE on the PPT image does it refer to existing receivers. How is this news and why is it being discussed. This was known since day 1 of MPEG 4 conversion. They wouldn't build a box that can only decode MPEG4. That would require a decision by the end user...a few HD chans or the SD pack...

#33 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:42 PM

Because, you get no OTA guide data without buying the LiL package anyway.

Rasheed

not on a 811 you get ota data without buying locals

#34 OFFLINE   unr1

unr1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 245 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:37 PM

The image obviously states that the "NEW PRODUCT LINE" will have MPEG-4 capability and MPEG-2 reverse compatibility. NOWHERE on the PPT image does it refer to existing receivers. How is this news and why is it being discussed.

/thread

#35 OFFLINE   Jason Nipp

Jason Nipp

    Analog Geek in a Digital World

  • Super Moderators
  • 10,041 posts
  • LocationNorthern Illinois
Joined: Jun 10, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:30 AM

Nick, all, sorry I am late chiming into this one, I am 7 hours ahead of you in Poland. I was sent an email by E* regarding this thread. I was asked if I could clarify a few things.

I was asked to clarify that the statement was that the new line of "receivers" introduced with MPEG4 capability would also be reverse compatible with MPEG2. It was not meant to say that the MPEG4 "transmissions" were reverse compatible with existing MPEG2 only receivers in the network. I am also under the impression that the segment was edited for content and length, but it is not known if this contributed to any misunderstandings.

Regards,
Jason

#36 OFFLINE   Antknee

Antknee

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 136 posts
Joined: Oct 13, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 06:17 AM

I recently signed up with dish. I called them a few times before signing up to ask questions. Each time I asked if the 942 would be compatible with their new MPEG 4 encoding and I was told yes each time. If it isn't I'm going to be pissed.

#37 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 06:49 AM

I recently signed up with dish. I called them a few times before signing up to ask questions. Each time I asked if the 942 would be compatible with their new MPEG 4 encoding and I was told yes each time. If it isn't I'm going to be pissed.

Well, your 942 won't DIE when it sees an MPEG-4 stream. It just won't decode it. :D

#38 OFFLINE   Antknee

Antknee

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 136 posts
Joined: Oct 13, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 06:51 AM

Ok, I am preparing to be pissed. Thanks

#39 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,264 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 06:59 AM

Ok, I am preparing to be pissed. Thanks



I think the CSR's are playing word games. When you ask if the 942 will be compatible with MPEG-4 they are saying yes because your 942 will still work. It won't get the new channels, but it will be usable (thus "compatible").

#40 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:04 AM

It always pays to check things out before passing them on. In this case DISH madea rather confusing announcement.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#41 OFFLINE   TomH

TomH

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 125 posts
Joined: Jun 11, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:13 AM

Precisely. In this presentation, Dish also stated that the chipset required to do this is essentially a miniature silicon computer, which, even if the cost could be reduced to only $10, would still cost E* billions to swap out 25 million receivers.



$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????

#42 Guest_gpflepsen_*

Guest_gpflepsen_*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:36 AM

$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????


$10 for the chip

$25 for shipping to and back

$15 labor for receiver work

(10+25+15)*25x10E6 = 1.25 Billions. :)

#43 OFFLINE   Antknee

Antknee

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 136 posts
Joined: Oct 13, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:54 AM

Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)

#44 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:01 AM

Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)

I think Jason knows something. His E* contacts poo-poo'd the whole concept.

#45 OFFLINE   jrb531

jrb531

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 916 posts
Joined: May 28, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:23 AM

I really hope they don't try some half-baked software decoding that will let MPEG-2 receivers read the MPEG-4, but not at quite the same level of PQ as a true hardware decoder. This would give Dish an excuse for not upgrading us because we can view the added channels (just not quite as sharp).


What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.

What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?

I suspect that they will transmit in one of the lower HD standards (rem how many HD screen resolutions are supported? that most of the current newer SD sets can view but not 1024i.

I'm a realist and swapping out millions of boxes will cost alot of $$$ and in the end we'll all pay for it either up front or in higher fees.

I support HD tv 100% but what good will spening the extra $$$ do if it forces me to buy new tv's for which I do not have the $$ for right now.

I suspect millions of other people will not be hot at the idea of having to pay for new boxes to see nothing extra until they buy new sets.

If this "half step" (and we are all guessing at this point) gets us a better picture for free then I'm all for it. Little by little as people by new HD sets people will upgrade to the new "real" Mpeg4 boxes. Seems like a win-win to me.

-JB

#46 Guest_gpflepsen_*

Guest_gpflepsen_*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:36 AM

In case you missed it, This thread is useless. It was started on the wrong premise and is perpetuated even after E* officially debunked it. MPEG-2 Receivers will not display the upcoming MPEG-4 transmission scheme. Nothing to see here, move along.

#47 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,388 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:45 AM

$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????

Yes.

Obviously, the $10 chipset isn't the only cost assocated with designing, manufacturing and rolling out a new IRD. Do your own math. As I wrote that comment, I was actually wondering if someone would overlook the many other costs of producing a new box and come back to challenge me on my statement.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#48 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,264 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:48 AM

What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.

What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?

-JB


Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???

Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....

#49 OFFLINE   olgeezer

olgeezer

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 1,833 posts
Joined: Dec 05, 2003

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:02 AM

Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???

Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....


The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.

#50 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:10 AM

The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.

At least it's not FRONT PAGE news any more.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...