New FTA service with 20 english channels

[trommy]

This new info lends more credence to FreeDBS;throws more light on their format.It also validates my (and others) previous posts.

 

[geekt]

I think you're playing with me,but just in case it is not obvious to you,people will drop their other providers to save money with a free provider even if it is not on the same level.The ppv will be a direct threat as well.Anything else you need spelled out??

Cause that SOO works with antenna systems. *rolls eyes*

I think this will provide more incentive to get friends to get FTA systems, in addition to their pay systems, and perhaps eventually dump their pay service, but I don't think they'll be converting in droves. Most don't even realize that investing in a GOOD antenna system will actually get them quite a few very high quality HD local channels for FREE. I don't understand why people even pay for local channels on pay services. If you get a good quality roof mounted antenna, you can get more local channels, with higher quality, and they don't randomly go out for no apparent reason as often as they seem to have when I had pay sat TV.

And welcome to the forum Jeff. Glad you could clear up a few things for us, and give us some more info to fight back the nay sayers.

 

[Mikhel]

Well, well, well...for all the "naysayers" out there--this certainly looks like a positive indicator for the FreeDBS service, does it not? No guarantee that it will happen, but still...looks to me like it's way too early to give up on the possibility.

Uhm... in reality they are just talking about a possibility that a "new" receiver will hit the market, not that freedBS is any closer to be on the air.

But i agree, after almost a year it's way too early to give up on freedBS, i mean, yeah they haven't tested a single thing, and they haven't put up a test signal, they haven't streamed a thing from their servers (just linked to free stuff off of archive.org using archive.orgs's own bandwidth)... it's way too early...

 

[eurosport]

Well, well, well...for all the "naysayers" out there--this certainly looks like a positive indicator for the FreeDBS service, does it not? No guarantee that it will happen, but still...looks to me like it's way too early to give up on the possibility.

 

[BabaLouie]

Uhm... in reality they are just talking about a possibility that a "new" receiver will hit the market, not that freedBS is any closer to be on the air.

But i agree, after almost a year it's way too early to give up on freedBS, i mean, yeah they haven't tested a single thing, and they haven't put up a test signal, they haven't streamed a thing from their servers (just linked to free stuff off of archive.org using archive.orgs's own bandwidth)... it's way too early...

Amazing how many negative nancies come out of the woodwork whenever someone tries to take on some positive new endeavor.

 

[Mr Tony]

guys please refrain from the posts with just an icon in it. Scott posted a announcement a week ago that those posts will be deleted. Now I know some folks may have missed it but lets not have those posts anymore. If you have something to say in regards to a post, then say it

 

[geekt]

I have something to say...Ice, your avatar scares me.

Uhm... in reality they are just talking about a possibility that a "new" receiver will hit the market, not that freedBS is any closer to be on the air.

But i agree, after almost a year it's way too early to give up on freedBS, i mean, yeah they haven't tested a single thing, and they haven't put up a test signal, they haven't streamed a thing from their servers (just linked to free stuff off of archive.org using archive.orgs's own bandwidth)... it's way too early...

Um...they have stated that they have tested it in a few houses. We have no clue what they have been testing. They could have been testing on encrypted channels. They could have sent test patterns through. Seriously, if you don't know, why do you act like you do?

 

[Stargazer]

Does anybody else think $219 is expensive for this receiver considering other FTA receivers are a fraction of this price? I think most that will get this service will not purchase any PPV or other channels therefore will not need a receiver with a card.

 

[trommy]

Seems like a reasonable price to me from a 'provider' especially when the programing is mostly free.I can't see me buying the first generation,having severalFTA boxes.but may want to for MPEG4 down the road.$219oo for a year or more of tv service sounds like a deal to me.

 

[Mr Tony]

so if they do MPEG4 my azbox already can do that so I'm set

 

[Dishman Dan]

Manhattan-Digital...

Maybe we can get this company to build a receiver to SatelliteGuys specs!?!?!?

 

[updatelee]

Maybe we can get this company to build a receiver to SatelliteGuys specs!?!?!?

They didnt build or design that receiver, they just chose one from a great mass of cheap Korean/Chinese receivers to choose from. Just as almost everyone does. You can look on alibaba and find it there under a different name and different appearance but identical specs.

 

[Dishman Dan]

They didnt build or design that receiver, they just chose one from a great mass of cheap Korean/Chinese receivers to choose from. Just as almost everyone does. You can look on alibaba and find it there under a different name and different appearance but identical specs.

I was thinking that they could at least specify what they want and have it custom built.

 

[trommy]

I was thinking that they could at least specify what they want and have it custom built.

Good point!I think that is common sense.I don't think they would be in business long if they simply took them 'off the shelf'.

 

[Bill_KY]

Why couldn't we have a HD receiver built to Satellite Guys specs? With a 4:2:2 capability along with all other known video formats, built AC3 converter to plain audio out and DiSEqC 1.1 , USB firmware update port, blindscan, full motor function, PVR capability, analog channel 3/4 out, HDMI out, component out, A/V out, (and anything else not mentioned here) and have it sell for around $199? Perhaps one of our sponsors could arrange it to our specs and sell it.....

 

[Jim S.]

SatelliteAV was working on a 4:2:2 receiver that was supposed to be both consumer-friendly and hobbiest-friendly, but they haven't mentioned anything about it lately.

 

[toucan-man]

SatelliteAV was working on a 4:2:2 receiver that was supposed to be both consumer-friendly and hobbiest-friendly, but they haven't mentioned anything about it lately.

I'm waiting to see that receiver, too. I'm eager to buy something that doesn't have the limitations of the Azbox.

 

[trommy]

Why couldn't we have a HD receiver built to Satellite Guys specs? With a 4:2:2 capability along with all other known video formats, built AC3 converter to plain audio out and DiSEqC 1.1 , USB firmware update port, blindscan, full motor function, PVR capability, analog channel 3/4 out, HDMI out, component out, A/V out, (and anything else not mentioned here) and have it sell for around $199? Perhaps one of our sponsors could arrange it to our specs and sell it.....

Who's gonna guarentee a certain amount of sales to make it profitable?Also,the more components (=features) you have in any electronic product,the more heat is generated.I'm guessing that may have a bearing on the number of features available.

 

[geekt]

I think that if a receiver came out in the US with good DVB-S/S2 blindscan, and 4:2:2 with at least USB external hard drive recording, it would quickly become the top box on the market. That is...as long as it's not a piece of crap.
It seems like the primary wish list item is 4:2:2.

 

[updatelee]

I think that if a receiver came out in the US with good DVB-S/S2 blindscan, and 4:2:2 with at least USB external hard drive recording, it would quickly become the top box on the market. That is...as long as it's not a piece of crap.
It seems like the primary wish list item is 4:2:2.

The azbox already meets those specs