DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
AllStar
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't need OTA but I do need the rest of the up dates. Why can't they give the rest of us all of the up dates less the OTA ? Then we could enjoy the repairs to all of the other problems we have. This would make a more stable unit.

So Split up the download. I have been waiting a month for the updates. Lets get with it D* I pay my bill every month on time. Maybe I should tell them I sent the check but it is a beta check and I hope it's good. But maybe next months will be good.
 

·
Lifetime Achiever
Joined
·
28,927 Posts
I.M. Nobody said:
I don't need OTA but I do need the rest of the up dates. Why can't they give the rest of us all of the up dates less the OTA ? Then we could enjoy the repairs to all of the other problems we have. This would make a more stable unit.

So Split up the download. I have been waiting a month for the updates. Lets get with it D* I pay my bill every month on time. Maybe I should tell them I sent the check but it is a beta check and I hope it's good. But maybe next months will be good.
maybe you live near me - OTA stinks in Pleasanton, CA.

I think it's one of those all-or-nothing things. If they took the time to split the functionality, then it wouldn't be the same release.
 

·
AllStar
Joined
·
93 Posts
I.M. Nobody said:
I don't need OTA but I do need the rest of the up dates.
Well,
I dont need the rest of the updates but I do need OTA.

I.M. Nobody said:
Why can't they give the rest of us all of the up dates less the OTA ?
I work in Software Configuration management. Unbundling functionality introduces additional bugs into the software and generally makes things take longer.
 

·
Cool Member
Joined
·
14 Posts
I think where I live, OTA wouldn't do much for me. I want to see more HD channels after the first of year. Hope they launch the new satellites soon. When they do we will all get more HD with no need for OTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,952 Posts
jbihsop1557 said:
I think where I live, OTA wouldn't do much for me. I want to see more HD channels after the first of year. Hope they launch the new satellites soon. When they do we will all get more HD with no need for OTA.
In response to the "myth" of "I don't need OTA"...

Advantages of OTA-HD over your MPEG-4/HD-Locals:

1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.

2. Immunity from signal loss: OTA-HD (unless you are in a fringe area) is much
less vulnerable to signal loss from precipitation.

3. Sub Channels and PBS (I don't think PBS-HD is carried yet by D*). There is
wonderful programming on PBS, and the video quality is stunning.

While some are satisfied with HD as delivered via D*, there are many of us who are not. See the OTA threads where a majority of those who finally got OTA turned on compare it's performance to MPEG4/HD-Locals...it's laughable.

No matter how many sats D* puts up, it's going to be a constant "business decision" how to allocate bandwidth: new channels or better video. Given past performance, what side do you think will win out next time?

So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
966 Posts
hasan said:
In response to the "myth" of "I don't need OTA"...

Advantages of OTA-HD over your MPEG-4/HD-Locals:

1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.

2. Immunity from signal loss: OTA-HD (unless you are in a fringe area) is much
less vulnerable to signal loss from precipitation.

3. Sub Channels and PBS (I don't think PBS-HD is carried yet by D*). There is
wonderful programming on PBS, and the video quality is stunning.

While some are satisfied with HD as delivered via D*, there are many of us who are not. See the OTA threads where a majority of those who finally got OTA turned on compare it's performance to MPEG4/HD-Locals...it's laughable.

No matter how many sats D* puts up, it's going to be a constant "business decision" how to allocate bandwidth: new channels or better video. Given past performance, what side do you think will win out next time?

So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false.
I think a person's position on this argument depends totally on their location. Those that have close, direct access to OTA signals will be on the OTA side. Those in more remote locations that have difficulty with OTA signal reception, or even having all the networks available in digital, let alone HD, will be on the other side. I personally get much better PQ from the MPEG-4 signals from the satellite than I do on the OTA network broadcasts. I am blessed though with a close PBS affiliate that has 3 subchannels, the one in HD being the only one I watch. So right now I get the best of both worlds, and could not be more pleased!:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,952 Posts
MikeR7 said:
I think a person's position on this argument depends totally on their location. Those that have close, direct access to OTA signals will be on the OTA side. Those in more remote locations that have difficulty with OTA signal reception, or even having all the networks available in digital, let alone HD, will be on the other side. I personally get much better PQ from the MPEG-4 signals from the satellite than I do on the OTA network broadcasts. I am blessed though with a close PBS affiliate that has 3 subchannels, the one in HD being the only one I watch. So right now I get the best of both worlds, and could not be more pleased!:)
Yep...it comes down to this: if you can get OTA, it will be better. If not, it is a moot point. My issue was dismissing OTA without thinking things through. HD as delivered by D* is anything but.

It is far superior to SD, but noticably inferior to OTA in most cases. That is my only point...don't dismiss OTA ...it is your best source of a quality picture and is likely to remain so for quite some time (if, as you point out, you can get it in the first place)
 

·
DBSTalk Club Member
Joined
·
251 Posts
hasan said:
In response to the "myth" of "I don't need OTA"...
It's not a myth. It is what it is. For some people, it is definitely not a myth: I don't need OTA.

hasan said:
1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.
None of my local stations have HD. I'm within about six miles of ALL major stations. NONE are in HD. Heck, not even all of the stations near me are broadcasting DIGITALLY yet! Clearly the "HD-Lite" picture quality is better than the SD analog I would otherwise get OTA.

hasan said:
2. Immunity from signal loss: OTA-HD (unless you are in a fringe area) is much
less vulnerable to signal loss from precipitation.
Irrelevant if you aren't even getting a digital (no less HD) OTA broadcast. ;)

hasan said:
3. Sub Channels and PBS (I don't think PBS-HD is carried yet by D*). There is
wonderful programming on PBS, and the video quality is stunning.
Also irrelevant.

hasan said:
So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false.
It's not false here. It's awfully silly to cast such a large blanket on a large number of people. I may hook up a tiny little antenna just for S&G, but I won't even add the OTA channels to my favorites list when I do get the guide. Just more crap to scroll through...

And while I may be in the minority, I doubt the minority is as small as you may think.
 

·
Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08
Joined
·
5,178 Posts
I don't NEED any of this. It's a luxury. :) I'm okay to wait another week (or so), if they're trying to make it as excellent as possible.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
127 Posts
iacas said:
And while I may be in the minority, I doubt the minority is as small as you may think.
I don't need or want OTA either. I live too far to recieve OTA without a pretty large ugly antena. Its not worth the hassle for me.
 

·
AllStar
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false.[/QUOTE]

Don't judge my need or want's by yours If you need to have OTA great but I don't. And I bet that there are a lot of people like me. I didn't say no OTA I said I didn't need it. I'm sure I could have a better picture but I'am happy with what I have.

Rember This is a free country. I fought to give you the right to have freedom of speech please don't get so upset it is only TV.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
545 Posts
I.M. Nobody said:
So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false

Don't judge my need or want's by yours If you need to have OTA great but I don't. And I bet that there are a lot of people like me. I didn't say no OTA I said I didn't need it. I'm sure I could have a better picture but I'am happy with what I have.

Rember This is a free country. I fought to give you the right to have freedom of speech please don't get so upset it is only TV.
So what is it you do need from these updates?

It seems to me that they (and I don't know this for sure) are working at adding features (ota...networking) rather than fixing bugs, with 0x108!

I don't need OTA, I want it. I don't need NETWORKING, I want it! Besides that I don't need any updates!!
 

·
Crivens!
Joined
·
768 Posts
iceman2a said:
So what is it you do need from these updates?

It seems to me that they (and I don't know this for sure) are working at adding features (ota...networking) rather than fixing bugs, with 0x108!

I don't need OTA, I want it. I don't need NETWORKING, I want it! Besides that I don't need any updates!!
Well, I don't need OTA either, but the fact that recurring manual recordings are now working correctly is a major deal for me - well worth the slight risk of loading a release that's already in limited distribution on the west coast.

I plan on grabbing the slightly tweaked version this evening if Santa takes flight, as now appears likely....
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
hasan said:
In response to the "myth" of "I don't need OTA"...

Advantages of OTA-HD over your MPEG-4/HD-Locals:

1. PQ (Picture Quality). The Gold Standard of PQ is OTA-HD and is likely to
remain so for quite some time. Your MPEG-4/HD-Locals from D* are transcoded from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...there is loss. Available bandwidth on D* is limited, so all
HD on the satellites is bit-starved (further degradation). HD as delivered via
D* is at best HD-Lite compared to OTA-HD, in most cases.

2. Immunity from signal loss: OTA-HD (unless you are in a fringe area) is much
less vulnerable to signal loss from precipitation.

3. Sub Channels and PBS (I don't think PBS-HD is carried yet by D*). There is
wonderful programming on PBS, and the video quality is stunning.

While some are satisfied with HD as delivered via D*, there are many of us who are not. See the OTA threads where a majority of those who finally got OTA turned on compare it's performance to MPEG4/HD-Locals...it's laughable.

No matter how many sats D* puts up, it's going to be a constant "business decision" how to allocate bandwidth: new channels or better video. Given past performance, what side do you think will win out next time?

So, before you dismiss OTA as not needed, it would pay to think things through a little more carefully. IMO your conclusion is patently false.
This is all well and good, unless you live in an area that is not served by OTA signals. In my case, living 57.5 miles and 4 valleys from the transmitters, I will never have use for OTA. EVER. I don't live in the middle of nowhere either, but in a town of about 25,000 people roughly 60 miles from Reno and Carson City. And I have news for you, there are several towns of a similar size in northern Nevada that will also never have access to OTA. That's why God made D* and cable.

For that matter, there are several very large towns in southern Nevada that won't get OTA either. The stations are angry enough about having to provide HD, they sure aren't going to add signal towers in outlying areas.

I hope those who can use OTA enjoy it, but there are many of out here who have no use for it.
 

·
Lifetime Achiever
Joined
·
28,927 Posts
islesfan said:
This is all well and good, unless you live in an area that is not served by OTA signals. In my case, living 57.5 miles and 4 valleys from the transmitters, I will never have use for OTA. EVER. I don't live in the middle of nowhere either, but in a town of about 25,000 people roughly 60 miles from Reno and Carson City. And I have news for you, there are several towns of a similar size in northern Nevada that will also never have access to OTA. That's why God made D* and cable.
I live in a town of 60,000 that is part of a valley of about 250,000 - OTA is blocked by a mountain about 3 miles away. That's true for most of the city, not just my address - no OTA for me :(
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
25,868 Posts
jbihsop1557 said:
I think where I live, OTA wouldn't do much for me. I want to see more HD channels after the first of year. Hope they launch the new satellites soon. When they do we will all get more HD with no need for OTA.
Don't hold your breath. Putting two and two together, the best case scenario for additional HD channels is on the order of the gestation period of a human.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
182 Posts
I.M. Nobody said:
I don't need OTA but I do need the rest of the up dates. Why can't they give the rest of us all of the up dates less the OTA ? Then we could enjoy the repairs to all of the other problems we have. This would make a more stable unit.

So Split up the download. I have been waiting a month for the updates. Lets get with it D* I pay my bill every month on time. Maybe I should tell them I sent the check but it is a beta check and I hope it's good. But maybe next months will be good.
I live in an area where I don't yet have HD locals from D*, so just like many others here, I depend on OTA in order to get mine in HD...I think that OTA is the most important feature that has been added as of yet...the other updates as others have said, will come with time...

Yes, you pay your bill on time every month, but you are only one customer...compared to the millions that have this receiver that want and need the OTA...if you were D* which way would you go?? Make a few customers happy or make MILLIONS happy?
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top