811 receives most of the new HD content (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

bunkerbob

Well-Known SatelliteGuys Member
Dec 11, 2003
25
0
this probably doesn't surprise the experts out there, but I was pleasantly surprised recently when I upgraded to one of the new HD packages (in conjunction with getting a vip411 receiver) and found that my old 811 receiver is able to receive much of the "new" HD content. This surprised me because the CSR had led me to believe that the new HD content would only be available on my new MPEG4 receiver, while my 811 would just continue to show the old HD channels. But I am now receiving Anamania, Equator, Family Room, Film Fest, Gallery, Kung Fu, Monsters, Rave, Rush, and Ultra on the 811. There are some I can't get: Treasure, Universal, World Cinema, Worldsport, and ESPN2. But all in all it's been a pleasant surprise, and I probably will delay replacing that 811 for a while longer.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

bhelms

"Wannabe Retiree"
Lifetime Supporter
Feb 26, 2006
7,788
844
Central PA
The first 10 channels you listed are the old voom MPEG-2 channels that the 811 could have been receiving all along if you sub'd to the voom pack ($5/mo.) Your new "metallic" pack includes all voom channels at whatever compression, so that's why your 811 can now receive those 10. The second group of 5 channels are the "MPEG-4" channels (actually -2, but headered as -4) so the 811 can't receive those. I will be in a similar situation as soon as I activate my new 622 and keep the 811 until it no longer receives sat. HD channels. (The OTA tuner should work indefinitely, tho'...)
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

M Sparks

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 15, 2005
1,946
1
Yeah, but he shouldn't be getting Family Room. That is one of the "MPEG-4" channels.

He SHOULD also be getting HD News.
 

bunkerbob

Well-Known SatelliteGuys Member
Dec 11, 2003
25
0
M Sparks... good catch -- I made a mistake including Family Room; misread my own little "x" on the channel lineup as a "check". And yes, I'm getting HDNews too -- I forgot that was a new one vs. old HD pack.
 

M Sparks

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 15, 2005
1,946
1
Smith said:
Those are not marked as "MPEG-4" channels, but flagged as "for ViP receivers only" or "for MPEG-4 receivers only" if you wish name it that way.

That's why I put "MPEG-4" in quotes. :)
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
Smith said:
Well, since there are no MPEG-4 headers, no MPEG-4 compression, then why use the misleading interpretation ? ;)
Since you're "baiting";) , please do tell us..............Wait ! Surely it's not to force subs to upgrade to MPEG4 receivers in ADVANCE of any significant MPEG-4 programming, maybe even to help fund further research into MPEG4 since they don't seem to understand it yet?

Ok, ok, before I get flamed, I agree that one's been beat to death.

However, when you add it to:

1. The HD-Lite debacle (in case you still don't get it, that whole business about fiber feeds was horseshit - HD Lite is not getting better anytime soon).
2. The fact that we were promised the remainder of the Voom 21 by the end of 2005 and told by multiple Dish sources that MPEG4 was still quite a ways off. Here it is almost mid May '06 and instead of Voom 21, we have Voom 15 and we were forced to buy / lease new receivers to get the new channels.
3. Dish promised us back in 2004 that just as soon as Congress allowed it, they would provide digital distants (HD DNS) "I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-L-Y". We still do not have them and since they've been allowed for a while now, it's probably safe to say Dish has no intention of offering them any time soon. Apparently it's not because they can't because they did have the NY & LA HD DNS available to qualified subs on Feb 2nd for a while and then took them down.
4. That Dish was still marketing their 942 as the flagship, HD, DVR, receiver right up until a few weeks before they announced it WOULD NOT work for the new HD programing and in fact, they even killed any decent resale value by stating they WOULD NOT authorize them for HD to new accounts.
5. That some of their best existing HD customers were actually made to wait (or pay a premium) months longer to receive the promised new HD channels that new customers could see right away.

I know I probably have not articulated all this very well but you get the point - Dish is NOT at the top of the list when it comes to integrity and honorable & ethical business practices. I'm not sure DTV is any better. When you sign on with Dish, you really should be prepared because at some point you WILL be pissed off at them.
 

John Kotches

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Nov 21, 2003
6,765
195
Troy, IL (STL Area)
Walt says:
3. Dish promised us back in 2004 that just as soon as Congress allowed it, they would provide digital distants (HD DNS) "I-M-M-E-D-I-A-T-L-Y". We still do not have them and since they've been allowed for a while now, it's probably safe to say Dish has no intention of offering them any time soon. Apparently it's not because they can't because they did have the NY & LA HD DNS available to qualified subs on Feb 2nd for a while and then took them down.

One problem with this, is they haven't identified what is considered an acceptable signal level at a particular address.

Until they do, Dish won't be able to add in distant networks. Once that's defined it should be relatively easy to allow for distant networks.

Cheers,
 

NightRyder

1978 Y88 T/A 6.6 4 spd 1978-2020 RIP
Supporting Founder
Sep 9, 2003
3,545
8
NW Oregon
John Kotches said:
Walt says:


One problem with this, is they haven't identified what is considered an acceptable signal level at a particular address.

Until they do, Dish won't be able to add in distant networks. Once that's defined it should be relatively easy to allow for distant networks.

Cheers,

The FCC decided to use the old analog white area model as a starting point for digital rather than go through a bunch of testing. Under the current FCC rules Dish could offer HD-DNS just like D* does, for whatever reason they have chosen not to.


NightRyder
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
John Kotches said:
Walt says:


One problem with this, is they haven't identified what is considered an acceptable signal level at a particular address.

Until they do, Dish won't be able to add in distant networks. Once that's defined it should be relatively easy to allow for distant networks.

Cheers,

Come on John.......Doesn't the fact that the "signal" doesn't exist yet constitute a less than acceptable "level" ?:rolleyes: That's the issue in Vermont and other places.

Besides, even if they can't yet "identify" what is "acceptable" for a digital signal, they have had a standard for what IS NOT acceptable for a long time now - and that's "if a person is qualified for analog distants they are eligable for digital distants".

Dish has been able to legally provide HD DNS for quite a while now - they are just choosing not to. What's really dispicable, is that they won't admit the truth and would rather "imply" it's due to legalities.
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
NightRyder said:
<snip>... Under the current FCC rules Dish could offer HD-DNS just like D* does, for whatever reason they have chosen not to.


NightRyder

Great minds think alike:D
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top