[k2ue]

Instead of the usual West-Coast-first rollout, why doesn't DirecTV rollout to Zip Codes WITHOUT HD LIL first -- that way people with HD LIL won't face any new OTA-related bugs until they are found and fixed, and the non-HD LIL folks will get something new and useful as compensation for putting up with the initial bugs.

Or is that too logical for a big company to deal with?

(Edited -- I meant HD Local-In-Local, not SD LIL).

 

[glennb]

What do you mean by LIL ?

 

[Mavrick]

What do you mean by LIL ?

LIL = Locals in Locals

 

[Andrew_J_M]

Instead of the usual West-Coast-first rollout, why doesn't DirecTV rollout to Zip Codes WITHOUT LIL first -- that way people with LIL won't face any new OTA-related bugs until they are found and fixed, and the non-LIL folks will get something new and useful as compensation for putting up with the initial bugs.

Or is that too logical for a big company to deal with?

What makes you think there will be any bugs?:lol:

 

[deebeeeff]

I am for roll-outs in psuedo-random alphabetical order starting with "F", then "B", etc....!Devil_lol :icon_lol: !pride

 

[walters]

I guess they can't target specific boxes, but what seems to have worked very well for TiVo is the priority list. If your goal is to reduce and/or gauge customer support calls from unsuspecting customers, you might as well let the savvy forum members sign themselves up since they're generally going to turn to the forum for support (if they even need any).

 

[Doug Brott]

I suspect part of the reason for the West Coast first is that the developers work out here. It's easier for them to start getting issues reported as the come in to work. Ultimately, updates should only come every 3-6 months (not weekly), so this won't be a real issue as we move forward.

 

[k2ue]

I suspect part of the reason for the West Coast first is that the developers work out here. It's easier for them to start getting issues reported as the come in to work. Ultimately, updates should only come every 3-6 months (not weekly), so this won't be a real issue as we move forward.

Nevertheless, it still seems foolish for HD LIL folks to be on here *****ing that "everything was fine until that damn OTA rollout" -- causing it to be further delayed for many of the non-HD LIL folks who are eagerly waiting. Satisfying customer needs and the convenience of the developers are not the same thing. . .

 

[carl6]

I think the west coast first rollout is mostly due to fewer total subscribers - less population density - in the west versus the east. It's easier to handle responses from 500,000 customers than from 1,500,000 customers if there are problems discovered.

Now I want to ask my dumb question of the day. What exactly does "Locals in Local" mean? What is the "in local" part? Why not just say HD Locals?

Carl

 

[walters]

Now I want to ask my dumb question of the day. What exactly does "Locals in Local" mean? What is the "in local" part? Why not just say HD Locals?

It's just a legal definition--you know how lawyers are.

US Code: Title 47, Chapter I, Section 76.66(a)(6):

Local-into-local television service. A satellite carrier is providing local-into-local service when it retransmits a local television station signal back into the local market of that television station for reception by subscribers.

 

[harsh]

I think the west coast first rollout is mostly due to fewer total subscribers - less population density - in the west versus the east.

The population density of New York City is actually substantially less than that of Los Angeles. Y2K statistics show LA at 7009 people/acre versus NYC's 5239 people/acre. That being said, the East's density is collectively greater, but it isn't everything. How television is customarily delivered is also an important consideration.

Now I want to ask my dumb question of the day. What exactly does "Locals in Local" mean? What is the "in local" part? Why not just say HD Locals?

Because HD locals with a fully-working HD receiver can come Over-The-Air. LIL is not limited to HD. NTSC (and some SD ATSC) broadcast channels are offered in local channel packages.

LIL comes from language in government regulations.

 

[carl6]

It's just a legal definition--you know how lawyers are.

US Code: Title 47, Chapter I, Section 76.66(a)(6):

Quote:
Local-into-local television service. A satellite carrier is providing local-into-local service when it retransmits a local television station signal back into the local market of that television station for reception by subscribers.

Thanks. And as harsh noted, the definition has nothing to do with HD. LIL is just as applicable to SD although I don't recall seeing anyone use the term before the MPEG4 rollout of HD locals.

Carl

 

[Dave_S]

Instead of the usual West-Coast-first rollout, why doesn't DirecTV rollout to Zip Codes WITHOUT HD LIL first -- that way people with HD LIL won't face any new OTA-related bugs until they are found and fixed, and the non-HD LIL folks will get something new and useful as compensation for putting up with the initial bugs.

Or is that too logical for a big company to deal with?

(Edited -- I meant HD Local-In-Local, not SD LIL).

I'd agree with that. How many folks that already get LIL are going to mess around with an antenna? I know I am not....

 

[Tom Robertson]

I'd agree with that. How many folks that already get LIL are going to mess around with an antenna? I know I am not....

Ah, but some of us with HR10s have already messed around with the antenna, got great PQ off OTA and are waiting for the HR20 to do the same. (and waiting for dual live buffers, working manual recordings, working NFL recordings...)

That said, I am in favor of either a signup list of forum members or a non-HD-LIL first roll out.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Rpbertxyz]

Ah, but some of us with HR10s have already messed around with the antenna, got great PQ off OTA and are waiting for the HR20 to do the same. (and waiting for dual live buffers, working manual recordings, working NFL recordings...)

That said, I am in favor of either a signup list of forum members or a non-HD-LIL first roll out.

Cheers,
Tom

The one thing nobody talks about that much is the PQ. I had 10 people over Thanksgiving day and I was able to switch from my TVs OTA to the mpg4 HD channels for the football games. Going back and forth, nobody could say 100% which picture was better.

Bob H.

 

[hasan]

The one thing nobody talks about that much is the PQ. I had 10 people over Thanksgiving day and I was able to switch from my TVs OTA to the mpg4 HD channels for the football games. Going back and forth, nobody could say 100% which picture was better.

Bob H.

Either you have a rare high performing MPEG-4 system, or your visitors are not very discerning. Differences between MPEG-4 via D* and OTA vary from "slight" to "you've got to be kidding", with a lot more reports on the latter side of things. Congrats on having a good MPEG-4 source...it's nice to hear, as we are all going to be stuck with it sooner or later. (via D*)

Most of the people currrently report a very obvious difference between how MPEG-4 is working for them and OTA (there are sound technical reasons for some of this, and just poor implementation of MPEG-4 at the local level for the rest.)

Keep in mind there are two very significant flaws in MPEG-4/HD-Locals as delivered by D*:

1. The source for MPEG-4 via satellite is MPEG-2 OTA...so they are transcoding MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...not a very good idea.

2. Inadequate bandwidth on the satellites at this point. They are bit starved and getting worse, not better. Until they get more birds up, it will only continue.

There is no free lunch. The best PQ currently is OTA, period...there is no way that transcoded and bit starved MPEG-4 can equal the MPEG-2 coming OTA. It's just not possible. With everything optimized, the differences could be small, but a trained eye will pick up on them every time.

 

[tonyd79]

Either you have a rare high performing MPEG-4 system, or your visitors are not very discerning. Differences between MPEG-4 via D* and OTA vary from "slight" to "you've got to be kidding", with a lot more reports on the latter side of things. Congrats on having a good MPEG-4 source...it's nice to hear, as we are all going to be stuck with it sooner or later. (via D*)

I think we have heard consistently from those in the Chicago market that the MPEG4 stations are pretty good.

1. The source for MPEG-4 via satellite is MPEG-2 OTA...so they are transcoding MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...not a very good idea.

I have to ask...are you familiar with the standards or are you assuming any conversion is a bad thing?

2. Inadequate bandwidth on the satellites at this point. They are bit starved and getting worse, not better. Until they get more birds up, it will only continue.

Evidence for bit starving on MPEG4? I thought Earl's contacts told him they were at full up MPEG4. Or are you assuming the bird squeeze that is affecting the MPEG2 HD is the culprit. I thought we were talking different birds and spot beams so the squeeze isn't there.

There is no free lunch. The best PQ currently is OTA, period...there is no way that transcoded and bit starved MPEG-4 can equal the MPEG-2 coming OTA. It's just not possible. With everything optimized, the differences could be small, but a trained eye will pick up on them every time.

That is just not true. You are assuming that the OTA has no errors from multipath, etc., and no slight blips in signal. If you have rock solid perfect OTA signal, then OTA would be as good or better but from my experience, it is damned hard for many to get perfect OTA reception.

 

[pgiralt]

I have to ask...are you familiar with the standards or are you assuming any conversion is a bad thing?

I am very familiar with similar technologies that use MPEG encoding and it is a fact that an MPEG2 stream that is transcoded to MPEG4 will never look as good as the original MPEG2 stream. To convert from MPEG2 to MPEG4 you basically have to decode the MPEG2 stream and re-encode in MPEG4. This means that you are starting off with whatever compression artifacts MPEG2 introduced and then adding new artifacts from MPEG4.

An MPEG4 stream derived from the same Uncompressed stream as an MPEG2 stream would likely look better than an equivalent bit rate MPEG2 stream, but so far everyone seems to think D* is taking MPEG2 and transcoding to MPEG4 which is disappointing.

 

[Earl Bonovich]

Until an infrastructure is in place, that allows the raw original uncompressed stream to get to the MPEG-4 encoders.... by definition on how the algorithms work.... something is going to be lost.

The question is... how much, and how good is the encoders on the MPEG-4.
As with the right equipment and software, those difference can be very very minor.

Here in Chicago, on an H20 (non-dvr), you can compare the two... at least on my TV, with my eyes, under normal (and even a little abnormal) viewing patterns... there is no difference.

The MPEG-4 are at full resolution. What is sent (or received), is what is transcoded and sent out to the MPEG-4 customers... there is no alteration of the image (just the "typical" compression influences).

There is no "over" compression being done.

Some of the encoding centers still have to be updated in hardware and software.... Chicago, New York, and a few other places have already been done. And no, I don't know the scheduled of those upgrades (different area that I don't have a regular conversation with).

 

[harsh]

I'd agree with that. How many folks that already get LIL are going to mess around with an antenna? I know I am not....

Those who want a fighting chance at access to PBS-HD and other majors like CW and MNTV are screaming for OTA. Then there are the digital subchannels that aren't otherwise available. Those dozens of markets that have HD but remain completely unserved by HD LIL are also clamoring. Finally, in markets as large as #14 and #23 who are missing two of the bigs, OTA is imperative.

Not everyone is so one dimensional that their needs can be served by two, three or four bigs.