Does anyone remember Scott mentioning a new Dish Network HD DVR MPEG-4 receiver that was only a one TV receiver? I'm curious if there is any more news regarding when this might come out. He had reported this in one of his big reports about 3-4 months ago. Any help would be appreciated, as I can't seem to find any more info on this one. Thanks.
New Dish Network HD DVR receiver
- Thread starter cblehm
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 3K
So many model numbers floating around that I even forgot the model number. (It was from Team Summit in June)
The receiver in question will be out in the November / December timeframe. It will be just like the 622 however will only output to one TV. This will greatly reduce the costs to make the receiver as it does not need the agile modulator in it for the second tv.
The receiver in question will be out in the November / December timeframe. It will be just like the 622 however will only output to one TV. This will greatly reduce the costs to make the receiver as it does not need the agile modulator in it for the second tv.
I believe you said it was called the 612. I'm waiting to give up my 942 to maybe get that one. I don't need the TV 2 output.
I would bet $1000 that it is impossible to retrofit a 921 with a MPEG-4 decoder. That's pretty dated circuitry to try to get a new chip integrated into the system board. Plus the software would require a massive rewrite. Even a 942 can't be upgraded to MPEG-4.
Retrofiitting a 921 would cost more than building a new 622.
It will be interesting to see how they price a 612. The parts cost difference is probably only $20-$40. But Dish sets prices in an arbitrary manner, given how much of a receiver is offset by subscription fees. So they could price it $50 cheaper, or $100 cheaper.
Retrofiitting a 921 would cost more than building a new 622.
It will be interesting to see how they price a 612. The parts cost difference is probably only $20-$40. But Dish sets prices in an arbitrary manner, given how much of a receiver is offset by subscription fees. So they could price it $50 cheaper, or $100 cheaper.
It would also save $5 a month for those that do not have phonelines and still want a second tuner to record two shows at once. I wonder if this receiver will be had for around the same price as the 522/625 receivers. I still say that a 622 would be cheaper than two 612's.
VinceT3 said:I just want them to encode TV2 in QAM or OTA digital so TV2 can be HD.
As cool as that would be, they never will because you could record it in the clear.
Its actually relatively simple to add the necessary chip, but obvious not cost efficient. Unlike the later machines it actually has conventional computer slots. If it had been cost efficient you can bet that dish would have done it.Tom Bombadil said:
Also would need new software for a machine that never was fully stable.
i think it would be cheaper to design and build one receiver in mass quantity's rather than a bunch of differant ones. maybe even modular; say you want dvr just slide it in ,you want dual tuner just slide it in. if something goes bad you just exchange the module and not the whole receiver. vooms ota tuner was module.:up
i think dish should move everything to MPEG4, have all the sd and hd (301,811) standalone receivers switched w/ the 211, and then if a customer wants a dvr or HD (the 522,625,or hd) then you give them the 622... simplify everything... having things built in bulk would cut down in cost... and it would add more bandwidth to the satellites.
sA :: Shaggy said:
My beef with that is the HD enable charge. At this point I'll keep my 811 for as long as I can.
Oh i forgot to mention... GET RID OF THE BS FEES there is no reason for the $6 fee instead of a $5 fee... we shouldnt be fined for upgrading... if someone could give me a list of all POSIBLE fees im sure we could all go throw it and see a lot of just plain BS fees...kb7oeb said:
sA :: Shaggy said:
I agree with you . The less amount of receivers the better. They don't need 12 types of receivers that increases the software writers workload, the techs work in customer call ins etc. They only need the 211 or the 622 period. But this is a transition period to full mpeg4 and Charlie is trying to recycle his older receivers like the 811 and the 921 into different numbered renamed receivers that don't do hd but do they do the ota digital stations. The 611 is not needed. If they made more of the 622s in bulk like you said this would reduce the cost and it would be cheap and affordable for all . THe 622 can be turned into an hd receiver or stay a sd receiver or be operated in dual mode or single mode.
The only reason for the 611 is that it can be made cheaper and be offered as a cheaper alternative to new customers. It will most likely be offered before the 622 in the future in order to increase the need for more than one receiver in most households. Also the second tuner fee is confusing to most customers and they don't understand it. A second receiver additional receiver fee is understood. Besides they can increase the amount of dvr fees on a customer if they want two of these 611 receivers.
Two dvr fees at 5.98 = 11.96 + 6.00 additional hd receiver fee = 17.96 on the one customer if he subs to anything less than Platinum pack. And if you don't keep the phone line hooked up then you can add another 4.99 x 2 receivers = 9.98 added to the 17.96 and you would get 27.94 in fees before you add the programming . All this pushes most people to go with # 1 phone lines - reduces the need for audit police and stacking, and #2. most people will sub to Platinum pack to escape the dvr and other misc fees. Wouldn't you go with more programming vs more fees?
It is always about money with Charlie and the bean counters at Dish. They have become more like cable then they know with all these extra hidden fees.
Last edited:
These B.S. fees is their way of trying to get a minimum goal of X amount of money per month from each subscriber in which is what they would like to see. They are going to get their money one way or another. If they do not make it off the programming then they are going to make it off the B.S. fees. In some cases they will make the same in both cases even though your paying less because they are not having to pay the companies that own the channels their money, Dish gets to keep all the money with the B.S. fees.
hobojoe said:
This is what I have been saying for a LONG time now. They really need to make their receivers like computers (Directv needs to do the same too). Make all receivers standard then add on the catridges to make them two, three, or four tuner receivers,, add on the hard drive DVR catridge, add on memory catridges, add on OTA tuner catdridges, ethernet/usb catridges, catridge for security (card/board/etc). Make the dang things upgradable instead of having to replace the whole entire things. These things are computers anyways. They STILL have not wisened up when it comes to this.
They could have software catridges even if you needed to have a different one based upon the setup that you have. The best thing to do in this case though is for the receiver to recognize everything put into it then update the software from the satellite based upon what is connected into it.
By doing this you would have one common receiver across the board with the add on's instead of so many dang different receiver models.
Will E* ever lesion to the smart people in the world (like urself) we try to simplify things and make it better for them and for the customer... but no... they have to make things difficult and try to get as much $$$ out of the people as possible before satellite TV becomes useless and they have to go out of business....Stargazer said:
EDIT... I forgot to mention that if you get rid of all the outdated recievers and u keep it down to the 2 THIS WOULD SAVE RETAILERS how many times have they been screwed because they have 5 942s instock and now they are outdated... i hate when that happends... its not fair to them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
T
-
-
-
-
I