Distant HD Networks (1 Viewer)

oswald

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Dec 27, 2005
91
0
Hi folks,

I am moving soon and have a question about distant networks. Does Dish offer the distant networks (for those eligble to receive them) in HD or just in SD? Thanks for the answer in advance!
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
oswald said:
Hi folks,

I am moving soon and have a question about distant networks. Does Dish offer the distant networks (for those eligble to receive them) in HD or just in SD? Thanks for the answer in advance!

Currently only CBS in HD but sources at Dish told me 2 months ago that "they're close" to offering ABC-HD and NBC & Fox are negoiating. I've got a follow up querry in but as yet have not heard anything.

Personally, I think Dish is holding back until they get as many HD LiLs negoiated as possible because that way they can use the potential for launching HD DNS as leverage - but that's just my opinion.
 

lakebum431

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 5, 2005
16,211
3,946
Norris, TN
Since they are going to be NY and LA (I assume). And those are in MPEG2 are they going to be offered in MPEG2?
 

BigFella

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 29, 2003
311
0
Just North of LA
lakebum431 said:
Never know, CBS is still in MPEG 2.
As much as I would like them in MPEG 2, I think this is wishful thinking. KCBS-DT is MPEG 4 (alright, "psuedo" MPEG4) on 129 and MPEG 2 on 148. WCBS-DT is still MPEG 2 on 61.5 but it seems any new offerings are going to be MPEG 4.

Waltinvt - Do you think it might be June? I believe Charlie mentioned that month a chat or two ago.
 

Kirby Baker

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 19, 2004
962
0
Somewhere in space
There is no "psuedo" MPEG4. NY HD locals are 100% true-blooded MPEG-2 streams. The only thing is that CBS and NBC are down-rezzed to 1440x1080. From what others have said elsewhere, the LA HD locals are exactly the same. They simply have these channels set to be viewable only on MPEG4 receivers, but that has nothing to do with the channels actually being MPEG2 or 4.
 

BigFella

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 29, 2003
311
0
Just North of LA
Kirby Baker said:
There is no "psuedo" MPEG4. NY HD locals are 100% true-blooded MPEG-2 streams. The only thing is that CBS and NBC are down-rezzed to 1440x1080. From what others have said elsewhere, the LA HD locals are exactly the same. They simply have these channels set to be viewable only on MPEG4 receivers, but that has nothing to do with the channels actually being MPEG2 or 4.
I wasn't bringing up the whole down rez debate in my previous response to Lakebum - To clarify, by "pseudo" I meant that the 129 signal is MPEG2 that is "masked" as MPEG4. I agree with you that KCBS-DT on 129 was only viewable with MPEG4 capable receivers such as the 622. Never said WCBS-DT (and KCBS-DT on 148) was anything but MPEG 2.
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
BigFella said:
As much as I would like them in MPEG 2, I think this is wishful thinking. KCBS-DT is MPEG 4 (alright, "psuedo" MPEG4) on 129 and MPEG 2 on 148. WCBS-DT is still MPEG 2 on 61.5 but it seems any new offerings are going to be MPEG 4.

Waltinvt - Do you think it might be June? I believe Charlie mentioned that month a chat or two ago.

To my knowledge, there is no significance tied to June other than maybe in Chuck's head. The closest relevant event is that by April 30th there is supposed to be a digital signal testing mechanism in place for the "top" 100 dmas. The FCC has been predictably silent on this issue but then they told congress that the existing L-R analog prediction model was fine for digital too (and they stalled on that revelation until just days before the deadline issued by congress), so their credibility for doing anything to help sat customers remains non-existent.

There has been a fair amount said about a lot of this and other aspects of SHVERA and qualification for distant digital network signals (HD DNS) if you search here and DBSTalk.

The bottom line is this. Although they would just as soon have you believe otherwise, Dish has been allowed to provide HD DNS to qualified customers for a long time now (just as "D" has). They have chosen not to for internal reasons they they will not make public.

My personal opinion is I think Charlie is just too cheap and doesn't figure he can make any money with HD DNS but doesn't have enough guts to say so. He'd rather be vague and stall around until he can get enough HD LiLs up so that the whole DNS issue goes away.

Some (many) rural area subs will be basically screwed for a long time but he doesn't care if it's not enough to hurt him in the pocketbook.
 

BigFella

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 29, 2003
311
0
Just North of LA
waltinvt said:
My personal opinion is I think Charlie is just too cheap and doesn't figure he can make any money with HD DNS but doesn't have enough guts to say so. He'd rather be vague and stall around until he can get enough HD LiLs up so that the whole DNS issue goes away.

Some (many) rural area subs will be basically screwed for a long time but he doesn't care if it's not enough to hurt him in the pocketbook.

Since Dish is in business to make money, I guess I'll have to agree with your opinion. I'm holding out hope however that he's figuring he needs 30 days after the April 30 date to get the HD DNS ball rolling! :D

I believe my situation is different than yours and other rural customers. Unlike yourself, I've got a few different options (Dish, cable and limited OTA) for local HD as I live in a suburban area north of LA (so I don't expect a lot of sympathy from those in your camp). I opted for distants when I had to make "the decision" a while back and I don't want to give those up (my wife is from NY and I enjoy the timeshifting advantage). In short, I want to have my cake and eat it too. Ideally, I would get all NY and LA HD nets from Dish. Since that's not going to happen (unless the laws change and/or the NAB lobbyists are tossed out of DC on their ear), the second best option for me is NY distants in HD from Dish and local HD from cable (as OTA signal generally sucks). Of course, if the "whole DNS issue goes away", then I'm SOL as far as distant HD is concerned because I can get local HD from Dish right now if I wanted to give up my distant SD nets.
 

waltinvt

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 16, 2004
3,439
1
Vermont
BigFella said:
Since Dish is in business to make money, I guess I'll have to agree with your opinion. I'm holding out hope however that he's figuring he needs 30 days after the April 30 date to get the HD DNS ball rolling! :D
Again, HD DNS won't be any more or less allowable after April 30th than they are now. The only possible influence it may have that I can see is maybe having the digital testing option makes it more likely that more afilliates will grant waivers, since they know if a test is done and it proves in favor of the viewer, the afilliate gets stuck with the testing charges.

BigFella said:
Of course, if the "whole DNS issue goes away", then I'm SOL as far as distant HD is concerned because I can get local HD from Dish right now if I wanted to give up my distant SD nets.

If your area has HD LiLs available from Dish now, then you're already SOL regarding HD DNS even if they were to become available. To get HD LiLs, you must sub to the analog LiLs package.
 

Stanleee

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 20, 2004
167
0
NY State
Scott that beats the usual "Yes network added to the Dish lineup". We all know that wil never happen. Happy April fools day!!!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Latest posts

Top