Now it is time to write DISH Again.

Here was what I sent to Dish:

Subject: HDLite (1280 X 1080I) Programming - Unacceptable HD Picture Quality

Gentlemen,

I was alerted by the Satelliteguys Forum that Dish has been providing HDLite (1280 X 1080I) and not a true uncompressed HD signal (1920 X 1080I) – confirming in writing something that I had already been noticing visibly. As such, when Verizon FIOS is offered in my community (within a couple of months) I will be switching to their service. I was writing to let you know that there are many HD enthusiasts that will be doing the same unless you change your business practice of offering HD Lite.


Sincerely,

Greg Miller

-- It may not change a thing but let's them know that when better HD is available they will lose my business ---
 
Sent one for what it is worth... I've been with them since 1998 & told them that I desire quality over quantity but feel they are in a unique position to offer both. With the onslaught of large displays and a grand emphasis on truely high definition video, it is sad to see them take a step in the apparent opposite direction. I hope these letters will at least plant a seed in the mind of some exec who will take a second look, if not now, then at least later.
 
How many of you have received phone calls from Dish regarding your emails today? I wrote early yesterday and still haven't received a response. I'm very curious to see how this latest issue will be handled. I think the upgrade path is fair (they do need to move up the date on the rebate so we can all take advantage immediately) but the HD-lite issue is a big one. FiOS will be in my neighborhood within the next few months... Dish is going to lose my business if they can't fix this quickly. I can only assume that most of us are only as loyal as our options when Dish compromises on quality...
 
I think if FIOS was available as an alternative to all DISH subscribers they would see a mass exodus to FIOS. That said, I think that as fast as Verizon can roll it out to communities is as fast as people will leave DISH for the true HD content (price point doesn't hurt either).
 
Hum. My email to DishQuality@echostar.com was rejected by their Barracuda firewall. I used my Yahoo email address which I have on my Dish account. Figures. I will use another address to resend it...

OK, didn't work from there either (using my work email). Did they block the email address or do I have it wrong?

OK, I copied and pasted and sent it to ceo@echostar.com that I saw in one of the early posts in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I am sending email every day. I sent two more out today. I think we need to keep the pressure up. They may not read all the emails but they do count the numbers. Just need to keep up the pressure.

Scott Have you heard any feedback from any of your DISH contacts since yesterday on this?
 
gutter said:
I am sending email every day. I sent two more out today. I think we need to keep the pressure up. They may not read all the emails but they do count the numbers. Just need to keep up the pressure.
Scott Have you heard any feedback from any of your DISH contacts since yesterday on this?
gutter, you're taking the risk of going from "activist" to "gadfly" by jabbing them twice a day.
 
CPanther95 said:
That's the point, nobody has established the "real" definition, officially. Until they do, the DBS companies will continue to define it as they see fit.
Let's play connect the friggin dots.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Volume 4 --
A list of CFR titles, subtitles, chapters, subchapters and parts
and an alphabetical list of agencies publishing in the CFR are
included in the CFR Index and Finding Aids volume to the Code
of Federal Regulations which is published separately and revised
annually.
reference #2
ATSC Doc. A/53B: ``ATSC Digital Television 73.682; 73.8000
Standard,'' Revision B, dated August 7, 2001,
with Amendment 1 dated May 23, 2002 and
Amendment 2, dated May 19, 2003 except for
Section 5.1.2 of Annex A, and the phrase ``see
Table 3'' in Section 5.1.1 Table 2 and Section
5.1.2., Table 4.
Doc A/53B is not available at atsc.org, but editorial revisions A/53C and A/53D are, which leads the exceptions noted above explicitly to the table where the top two lines are:
Compression Format Constraints
vertical_size_value horizontal_size_value aspect_ratio_information
1080 1920 1,3
720 1280 1,3

aspect_ratio_information: 1 = square samples, 2 = 4:3 display aspect ratio, 3 = 16:9 display aspect ratio
:eek:
So the FCC has indeed delegated the definitions to the ATSC via the DTV Fifth Report and Order. (which I've been unable to find :down)
Now lets go to the "Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard" so we can learn how to RTFM.
3. Definitions, 3.2 Terms Employed, page 12:
high-definition television (HDTV) High-definition television provides significantly improved picture quality relative to conventional (analog NTSC) television and a wide screen format (16:9 aspect ratio). The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1. The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats
WTF is Table 5.1?
Vertical Lines Pixels Aspect Ratio Picture Rate
1080 1920 16:9 60I, 30P, 24P
720 1280 16:9 60P, 30P, 24P
480 704 16:9 and 4:3 60P, 60I, 30P, 24P
480 640 4:3 60P, 60I, 30P, 24P
Can I be done now?
-sc
 
mdonnelly said:
gutter, you're taking the risk of going from "activist" to "gadfly" by jabbing them twice a day.


But not to the same email address.
 
gutter said:
I am sending email every day. I sent two more out today. I think we need to keep the pressure up. They may not read all the emails but they do count the numbers. Just need to keep up the pressure.
Scott Have you heard any feedback from any of your DISH contacts since yesterday on this?

If you're referring to me, I'm only hearing crickets.

Just found this at atsc.org:
FCC Final Report and Recommendation on Advanced Television Service
For scanning, the standard includes two HDTV formats: a 720 lines x 1280 pixels per line format at 24, 30, and 60 frames per second progressively scanned, and a 1080 lines x 1920 pixels per line format at 24 and 30 frames per second progressively scanned and 60 fields per second interlaced scanned. Two SDTV formats also are described: 480 lines by 704 pixels per line in both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios, and 480 lines by 640 pixels per line in 4:3 aspect ratio. Each SDTV format offers progressive scanning modes.

-sc
 
I e-mailed Charlie Ergen and requested that he reconsider his HD downrezing strategy and stated that I strongly favour quality over quantity.
Historically Dish has successfully used a "fast follower" strategy relative to DirecTV. I believe that following DirecTV to HD-Lite would be a strategic mistake in that Dish would lose a significant competitive advantage over DirecTV and provide an opportunity for the cable industry to be the full resolution HDTV leader.
Derek
 
This is a good read letting you see where everyone came down on the issue prior to the FCC deciding not to enforce any specific standards, but it'll piss you off (from: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96493.txt):


III. Comments

8. Technical Standards for DTV. We received a broad range of comments regarding the
Fifth Further Notice about whether and how to adopt technical standards for digital broadcast and
the proper role of government in the standard setting process. There is widespread agreement among
commenters that selection of a DTV standard should be analyzed in terms of network effects, that
is the indirect benefits that accrue to other DTV users when any particular user adopts DTV.
Broadcasters, computer interests and cable interests agree that broadcasting is a network product;
that issues surrounding selection of a DTV standard are influenced by network effects; and that in
order to evaluate the various alternatives, it is important to understand how network effects will
operate. While commenters agreed on a common analytical framework, they disagreed on the
relative severity of the startup, coordination and potential splintering problems facing digital
broadcast television. Startup refers to the situation where everyone would be better off adopting
DTV technology but no one has the incentive to move first. Coordination is the collaborative effort
by broadcasters, consumer equipment manufacturers, and program producers that is necessary to
introduce DTV. Splintering refers to the breakdown of the consensus or agreement to use the DTV
Standard.

9. Commenters also disagreed on the availability and effectiveness of market-based
mechanisms to solve these problems and to facilitate the goals and objectives established in this
proceeding. Broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and some consumer groups contend that DTV
has startup, coordination and splintering problems that are more severe than those of other network
industries and that a DTV standard adopted by the Commission is needed to overcome these
problems. In contrast, cable and computer interests contend that all sectors of the broadcast
industry have significant incentives to reach a consensus on transmission and reception standards
without a government mandate.

10. Broadcasters warn that a market-driven selection of a standard would result in barriers
to the introduction of DTV if different incompatible systems develop. Under a market-based
approach, for example, broadcasters in the same community could select different and incompatible
transmission systems so that consumers would only be able to obtain service from those television
stations using the system that is compatible with the receiver they have purchased and be denied
access to those using another transmission system. Broadcasters maintain that a government-
mandated standard is essential to ensure a universally available, advertiser-supported over-the-air
digital broadcast service in the future. In contrast, cable interests do not agree that there are unique
characteristics or public policy goals attendant to broadcast DTV, or that there would be a market
failure unless a mandatory transmission standard is adopted. They argue that the rationale for not
adopting transmission standards for DBS, PCS, MMDS, and DARS applies to DTV.

11. There is likewise a range of opinion on the merits of the ATSC DTV Standard.
Broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, the Grand Alliance, and ATSC urge the Commission to
adopt the complete ATSC DTV Standard. They contend that only a Commission-adopted standard
will supply the certainty needed by all parties to undertake the transition to DTV and that the ATSC
DTV Standard is the best DTV standard in the world. The Grand Alliance contends that "[t]he
system's all-digital layered architecture, its packetized data transport structure, its use of headers and
descriptors, its support of multiple picture formats and frame rates with a heavy emphasis on
progressive scan and square pixels, and its compliance with MPEG-2 international compression
and transport standards, give it unprecedented and unmatched interoperability with computers and
telecommunications." (Footnotes added.)

12. Computer interests, lead by Computer Industry Coalition on Advanced Television
Service ("CICATS"), urge us not to adopt a DTV standard but state that if we decide to the contrary
we should only mandate a minimum base-line standard based exclusively on progressive scanning
technology. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") stresses
the need for a single mandatory DTV standard but recommends limiting a standard to only those
elements necessary to provide certainty, encourage adoption, ensure the opportunity for
technological developments, and promote evolution to an all-progressive scan system. NTIA
concludes that the best solution would be for interested parties to reach a consensus on disputed
issues.

13. While favoring a mandatory DTV standard, most commenting cinematographic and
imaging interests (with the significant exception of the Motion Picture Association of America,
Inc.) oppose adoption of the ATSC DTV Standard in its current form because of its inclusion of
interlaced scanning and other perceived deficiencies, particularly in its video and audio
specifications. MPAA, however, supports all aspects of the Standard including its use of both
interlaced and progressive scanning and its 16:9 aspect ratio. As noted above, the cable industry
opposes adoption of mandatory standards. The National Cable Television Association ("NCTA")
is not critical of the specific ATSC DTV Standard, but questions whether any standard should be
dictated by government. Nevertheless, it recognizes the need for performance standards for
controlling interference.

14. Public interest groups generally favor adoption of a single mandatory standard although
they differ on what that standard should be. For example, Consumer Federation of America and
Media Access Project ("CFA/MAP") believes that the public interest will be served if the
Commission adopts a digital television standard that 1) reduces the cost of digital receivers and
converters and 2) permits the convergence of video and computer technologies. In contrast,
National Consumers League urges adoption because "n the absence of a standard, consumers will
be confused. The marketplace will send a number of conflicting messages as new products will
diverge in purpose and application. Demand for HDTV and related products will not materialize,
and we will not experience the dramatic price reductions normally associated with consumer
electronics products. The market will simply not be able to function efficiently, and consumers will
literally pay the price." Citizens for HDTV contends that the Commission should adopt the
Standard for several reasons, which include "the unique 'open' and 'universal' nature of the Nation's
broadcasting system, as distinguished from other media; the appropriate role of government...in
adopting and mandating this Standard; the certainty and confidence [it] affords for investments by
consumers...; and the importance of the Standard to DTV compatibility with today's NTSC broadcast
system and the Commission's planned recapture of part of the TV bands after the transition is
completed."
 
The VOOM Re-Launch

The VOOM Re-Launch

Charles W. Ergen
Chairman and Chief Exec. Officer
EchoStar Communications Corp.

Dear Mr. Ergen:

Charles Dolan, Chairman of Cablevision, had a vision for TV using the highest standard
of full high-definition. Not many saw it (you must have) or bought into VOOM, but I did. I even constructed a small Home Theater because of the VOOM programming and picture. I posted 25 pictures on a free Web Site http://community.webshots.com/user/rickaren103 and in just about one year it has been viewed over 14,500 times!

I was so pleased that DISH bought-into VOOM after its demise, that I added DISH to my other satellite carrier, DirecTV, as soon as it was available. Over the past few months the picture quality of the DISH supplied VOOM programming has deteriorated, and now with its Re-Launch, even more.

Not only was the 21 previous VOOM channels not Re-Launched (15) as promised, but now none are being shown in 1920X1080. There is no WOW effect, now. VOOM picture quality has never looked as good on DISH as it was on VOOM DBS, but again I waited for the promised Re-Launch to correct this.

I don’t understand any of this; however DISH has something to offer, if done right, that its competition (DirecTV & Cable) can not match at present. Bringing back VOOM in the highest standard of HD would not only be a great promotional tool for DISH, but would increase interest in new 1080p televisions that uses it. I was interested myself in the new Toshiba SED technology, but if there is not a source from Satellite or Cable, I’m not interested. DISH’s present HD programming sent in HD-LITE just saved me 5K!

Using proper specifications DISH could run Ads like:

HAVE YOU PURCHASED A NEW FLAT SCREEN HD TV?

IF YOU WANT TO SEE HOW GOOD A HIGH PERFORMANCE PICTURE IT CAN PRODUCE HOOK IT UP TO DISH’S NATION’S LARGEST HD PACKAGE. NO OTHER PROVIDER COMES CLOSE! (view true 1920 by 1080 pixels that meet full high-definition specifications)

Other Ads could show a 100K or up, Home Theater with the owner saying “I only use DISH’S HD Pack. No one does it better!”

DISH is known as the “Low Cost Leader”, it could also become the “High Performance HD Leader” too.

High Performance helps sell cars, but may not be the majority of their sales. I understand that HD is not main stream yet with DISH, but if the customer knows they are with a service that can supply it now, they may choose DISH now, and up-grade later. Let’s get the WOW back in VOOM and advertise you have the best, not just the largest.

Thanks for you consideration on this issue.
 
E* is unlikely to start a fight in which they will be ill-equipped to continue beyond the next 12-18 months. Cable should have taken this route 2 or 3 years ago and bitch-slapped the DBS companies, instead D* will have been allowed to launch their whole fleet of new sats before anyone bothered challenging them on PQ, and they would not have had the bandwidth to respond.

Now that E* is jumping on the HD-LIL bandwagon, unless they have capacity for in excess of 800 HD channels, they will continue to ration bandwidth to allow as many options as possible.
 
CPanther95 said:
If you look at what actually was adopted, they specifically excluded Table 3 of the ATSC standards which specify the exact HD resolutions.
Yes, I noted that. It specifically omits the table of "Compression Format Constraints"--this would require the DTV broadcasts to one of these 18 resolutions.
CPanther95 said:
This is a good read letting you see where everyone came down on the issue prior to the FCC deciding not to enforce any specific standards, but it'll piss you off
I'm unclear why this would upset people. The consequences of this directive, which could have easily predicted, is to set the standards without beholding anyone to them. How many tuners have you seen that don't comply with the 18 ATSC standards (ATSC standards, not FCC standards)? This just keeps the door open to innovation for new technological advances while providing a baseline that the market will need to meet.

Don't make the mistake of interchanging the codification of DTV standards for the definition of an HD resolution. While I'd feel better if the A/53 docs had the definitions contained within, document A/54 can reasonably considered as an inclusion to A/53 and the other ATSC "Inclusions by Reference"--which is in fact stated in the Code:
Although not incorporated by reference, licensees may also
consult ATSC Doc. A/54, Guide to Use of the ATSC Digital Television
Standard, (October 4, 1995), and ATSC Doc. A/69, Recommended Practice
PSIP Implementation Guidelines for Broadcasters (June 25, 2002)
Again, codifying a standard is different than defining a term, and that's what A/54 does--defines the term "high definition."

Is this horse dead yet?:p

Again, I'm not saying that they can't broadcast or use a 1280x1080i resolution, I'm just saying they cannot call it "high definition."

-sc
 
scottrell said:
I'm unclear why this would upset people.

It may not upset others, but what pisses me off is that there was deliberate debate about setting specific standards for HD - Consumers, Broadcasters and Electronics manufacturers all urged them to set that definition, but they declined.

I understand the open format argument, but I think the necessity for flexibility was way over-blown as to it's impact on consumers adopting the new technology. It is also something that could have been addressed down the road if it was determined to be an issue.
 
Dear: Scott

Thank you for contacting DISH Network regarding HD programming.

DISH Network strives to offer the best quality of high definition programming that meets industry and television standards while maximizing DISH Network's HD offering to consumers nationwide.

Thank you,
Natalie Winters
Executive Resolution Team
Boy, talk about your non-answers.

I replied, I couldn't help it.
So will Dish Network not be utilizing a 1280 by 1080i resolution for its new high definition programming?

Or is it Dish Network's position that 1280 by 1080i is high definition--which by ATSC standards it most definitely is not?
(see page 12 for the definition of "high definition" http://www.atsc.org/standards/practices/a_54a.pdf)

Thank you for your reply
-sc
 
Here's what DISH said to me...

Got this response from DISH to my e-mail:

Thank you for contacting DISH Network regarding HD programming.

DISH Network strives to offer the best quality of high definition programming that meets industry and television standards while maximizing DISH Network’s HD offering to consumers nationwide.

Thank you,
Natalie Winters
Executive Resolution Team


Isn't it funny that they have a "resolution" team?:) Though I don't think they would see the humor in that.
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts