DISH and 4K (1 Viewer)

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

MikeD-C05

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 25, 2003
26,237
16,209
Nederland , Texas
Real time upscaling to UHD would take impressive CPU power. You really think currently deployed STBs can do it?




Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App using an iPhone.
I suggested the NEWEST sat receivers that they come out with . Not present day receivers.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,663
7,527
FL
That's sort of the point, FCC/FTC have a history of three providers being "enough" of a market. OTT will add another competitor to the mix. 90% of the population will still have "sufficient" competition. The only real price protection they have to put in is that rural markets will never be charged more than the "competitive" markets, with maybe a little extra short term sweetener.
Reality is though, there is no competition in the market, no matter how many providers are in the fray. As long as the content owners are calling the shots, that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell

bigjohnok

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 27, 2014
983
173
BFE Flyover State
Reality is though, there is no competition in the market, no matter how many providers are in the fray. As long as the content owners are calling the shots, that is.
this is because they are footing production costs which include pay for actors and actresses and the bigger names you use the higher the costs, then never mind all the hidden people that are behind the scenes. then there is permitting if they are filming at some off set location that isnt in a studio or a 'back lot", plus all the logistics cost that come with this type of filming and other production costs for sets, props, equipment,
 

JM42

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 25, 2010
1,748
280
GA
Reality is though, there is no competition in the market, no matter how many providers are in the fray. As long as the content owners are calling the shots, that is.
When has reality had anything to do with governmental actions?
 

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,663
7,527
FL
this is because they are footing production costs which include pay for actors and actresses and the bigger names you use the higher the costs, then never mind all the hidden people that are behind the scenes. then there is permitting if they are filming at some off set location that isnt in a studio or a 'back lot", plus all the logistics cost that come with this type of filming and other production costs for sets, props, equipment,
...and all those costs are left uncontrolled and unfettered because they know they can write their own extortionist ticket. This is especially apparent in the sports world.
 

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,011
4,403
Mesa, Az
I agree with both of you. Granted you both are saying the same thing, you have taken two very different sides of the coin. Personally, I think we should pay the actors less, and make those big names realize, their gonna have to work more for the money. I'm tired of 8 episode seasons, and random write offs. It will never happen, but I wish someone would put in a checks and balances on the tv world. But we will still pay to watch, either way, and they know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigjohnok

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,663
7,527
FL
I agree with both of you. Granted you both are saying the same thing, you have taken two very different sides of the coin. Personally, I think we should pay the actors less, and make those big names realize, their gonna have to work more for the money. I'm tired of 8 episode seasons, and random write offs. It will never happen, but I wish someone would put in a checks and balances on the tv world. But we will still pay to watch, either way, and they know that.
We overpay to watch, but if the consumer is smart, not for much longer.

(I think I just answered my own rhetorical question there)
 

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,340
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
I dropped programming after football season last year and I think Dish pause or welcome pack will be the decision come January after this season. I may even go to a cheap cable bundle. Been looking a lot harder lately. Channel blackouts and rising costs are just becoming a PIA to deal with. I just dont see the value in the costs of programming for 4 or 5 shows on a couple channels and the rest I watch OTA. I can easily afford it but I'm a stingy SOB and just dont see the value in it anymore.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dare2be

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,011
4,403
Mesa, Az
I'm questioning, if I lost my credit, would I stick with dish. Everywhere has the high costs, and I watch a lot of tv, I love the hopper Joey system, and I hate learning new equipment and channel locations. But cox is pushing hard, and they are coming out with a 1Gbps download speed very soon, so if I could work that into a bundle, maybe.
 

bigjohnok

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 27, 2014
983
173
BFE Flyover State
I dropped programming after football season last year and I think Dish pause or welcome pack will be the decision come January after this season. I may even go to a cheap cable bundle. Been looking a lot harder lately. Channel blackouts and rising costs are just becoming a PIA to deal with. I just dont see the value in the costs of programming for 4 or 5 shows on a couple channels and the rest I watch OTA. I can easily afford it but I'm a stingy SOB and just dont see the value in it anymore.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
I had actually was using streaming webcasts out of Europe for my tv viewing needs then I went to work for the company and got "free" service I still pay taxes and fees but that is minimal.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,340
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
I had actually was using streaming webcasts out of Europe for my tv viewing needs then I went to work for the company and got "free" service I still pay taxes and fees but that is minimal.


Probably 80% of my viewing is thru my VPN to UK, Ireland, and Australia. Some Canada, New Zealand too.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,340
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
I'm questioning, if I lost my credit, would I stick with dish. Everywhere has the high costs, and I watch a lot of tv, I love the hopper Joey system, and I hate learning new equipment and channel locations. But cox is pushing hard, and they are coming out with a 1Gbps download speed very soon, so if I could work that into a bundle, maybe.


I hate Cox equipment but they have some decent bundles but still I would be paying for a lot of stuff I would never watch. They just doubled the speeds in Tulsa. My 50M service is now 100M. I need to have them out to check my line my signal is right at the threshold of 54dbmv and I'm losing channel bonding occasionally on my upload which is important with my slingbox.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 

DishSubLA

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2006
5,290
1,145
I don't see that change-out ever happening. There will no doubt be an H.265 receiver for 4K content, but I don't see 4K for more than a few premium and specialty linear channels, and the inevitable DirecTV/Dish merger will probably have occurred allowing for more overall bandwidth anyway.
1. I can agree that a change-out may never happen, but only because Dish could leverage its latest boxes connected to the internet to create a hybrid service of sat and internet to deliver content, and 4K could be pushed mostly via internet with only a few 4K on the sat, if any. But we don't how Dish may handle 4K down the line, and then 8K?

2. If AT&T is allowed to acquire DirecTV, then we will NEVER see Dish and DircTV merge. The Feds/Justice Department would never permit it because it would be far too onerous for the consumer. That leaves the only acquisition of Dish that makes sense: Verizon. Yeah, they have FiOS TV, but there situation with it is exactly as it is with AT&T, although AT&T's Uverse is inferior to Verizon FiOS. However, FiOS still has no critical mass, they are paying more for programming than DBS and cable companies, their footprint is limited to local regions, and gaining a national foothold begins to make economic sense instead of the now abondoned attempt to bring FiOS to their entire service area because of COSTS: specifically, not enough people signing up for FiOS TV where it exists today to economically justify continuing the build-out. Verizon may pass on Dish, but I think they are really seriously considering it more than they want anyone to know, and they certainly feel they can wait until AFTER the upcoming spectrum auction to see what additional spectrum Dish wins to get a better idea of what spectrum Verizon or Dish can keep or sell in order give a merger of Verizon/Dish greater chance of approval.
 

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
23,833
2,578
Norman, OK
There are still a lot of things to get finalized on 4k. HDMI is still waiting on chipsets that can do deep color, the new HDCP 2.2 and 4k at the same time. The Blu-Ray spec was just redone, and now players (really chipsets) have to be made, BDs need to be mastered and released to the new specs. The HEVC needs to get finalized and put into chipsets. Yes there are currently work arounds for all of these being used to get 4k out the door. But, it will probably be towards the end of next year, or perhaps 2016 before we actually see end to end 4k really available (i.e. BD source disks, HDMI, receivers, and TVs) with all the specs being followed.

That is when I suspect companies like Dish will actually release a product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickDee and lucky86

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
23,833
2,578
Norman, OK
I think you're being a bit optimistic.

Probably true. This is why I have avoided buying 4k. I would buy 4k if it happened to be on a set that cost the same as the 1080p. I currently see it as the component vs HDMI issue of the 1080p transition. Yes, component worked for a while, but now it is hard to get HD to a set without HDMI.

http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/

And a table from avsforum: http://www.avsforum.com/attachments/76022

The table is just showing how sony is classifying their HDMI 2.0 offerings with both a level A and B offering.

Essentially an HDMI 2.0 compatible port may not support all color combinations, refresh rates or HDCP 2.2. and still be "HDMI 2.0".
 

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,011
4,403
Mesa, Az
I saw to sony TVs side by side at Costco. The 4k was priced at $3500 the HD was priced at $1500. The picture was pretty on both, but the HD looked better then the 4k. I told the rep, and they noticed it as well. Both systems were on DTV. But $2000 extra, for the same if not slightly worse picture? This was at 7 feet, on 60" screens.

Before someone chews my head off, I can guarantee it needed calibrated, but the fact that the picture and color schemes just did not look that good on it's own, turned me off from buying one, or caring about it, until one of my TVs go out. I think I got quite a few years of life left in them.
 
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