Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DirecTV's 1st MPEG4 Satellite Launch Successful

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the final-frontier-seems-a-little-boring-lately dept.

tivoKlr writes "Looks like the 1st Spaceway satellite to provide "1500 channels of HD" has made it successfully into space. MPEG4 compression and local HD channels, something that the cable company can't offer in my area." Unfortunately the new satellite obsoletes the HD Tivo, and there's no word on when there will be a new one.

51 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Full HDTV Finally by blackmesh.com · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Finally something that can compete with Comcast's 15 HD channels. This might actually push local cable providers to finally offer HD service for all of the channels.

    Of course the content will have to be in HD as well. But this always has been the chicken and the egg problem, without a network to broadcast HD content, why create it?

    jason

    --
    Managed Hosting
    1. Re:Full HDTV Finally by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoa you have 15 on comcast? You lucky bastard.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    2. Re:Full HDTV Finally by BraceletWinner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dish Network bought the Voom satellite, so you may be able to get those channels on Dish soon.

    3. Re:Full HDTV Finally by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dish is buying the satellite and the uplink facility. However the content and encoding equipment wasn't included in the deal (yet..stay tuned though ;) )

    4. Re:Full HDTV Finally by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Informative

      DirecTV is offering a $200 rebate for voom customers looking to move to DTV.
      http://www.directv.com/voom/

  2. Re:Who does the sky belong to? by Manan+Shah · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tin foil hat is firmly secured. Bring it on.

  3. For someone not hip on the lingo by Enigma_Man · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does it obsolete the HD TiVo?

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    1. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by Dios · · Score: 4, Informative


      I believe the High Def Tivo uses MPEG2 for its data streams, won't be capable of decoding the MPEG4 streams.

    2. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by skaeight · · Score: 2, Informative

      I will confirm that a software update will not allow an HDTiVo to decode MPEG-4. TiVos are very low powered devices, and thus use hardware decoder chips, not software decoding. So they have an MPEG-2 decoder chip to complement a comparibly underpowered CPU. They can't simply push a new codec down to the TiVo to decode MPEG-4.

      HD DirecTiVos will be obsolete next year.

    3. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by Sc00ter · · Score: 2, Informative
      DirecTV doesn't want to use TiVo anymore, they are developing their own "Home Media System" or something like that to replace the HDDirecTiVos. It is of course not released yet.

      --
      Free Mac Mini
    4. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What is it with these customer-oriented companies that forget where their money is coming from?"

      Look up the words "Monopoly" and "Oligopoly"

      Short answer is, they dont *have* to care. You want them more than they need you.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by mmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is anything like TimeWarner's offering, it will suck in a major way!!

      TimeWarner's DVR makes my exact point:

      1. set top box is horrible buggy (I found a dozen major bugs without trying in less than 30 minutes)

      2. the interface is so bad that you want exactly who the user is supposed to be

      3. No help from TimeWarner (assuming you can get through) on the matter

      It was so bad I took the DVR back and told them to shove it. Not that they cared.

    6. Re:For someone not hip on the lingo by pLnCrZy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when are "DVD quality" and "High Definition" interchangeable terms?

  4. In this kind of setup... by PornMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do they encode regular NTSC signals as HD even though there's no visual benefit, to simplify production, operation, and tuning at the client end?

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    1. Re:In this kind of setup... by gevmage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Digital TV has 18 different formats (resolutions), 6 of which are considered "HD". A couple of them are equivalent to NTSC resolution; 640x480 pixels. So NTSC stuff would presumably be broadcast in the standard appropriate digital format, taking up less bandwidth than one of the HD formats.

      --
      Craig Steffen
      http://www.craigsteffen.net
  5. Satellites are linear not digital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note that comm satellites are just 'bent pipes'. This keeps them simple and independent of changing technology. So, there likely isn't any MPEG4 technology on board the satellite. Rather, the technology will be in the ground station. Therefore, DirecTV could have used an existing satellite in orbit, or even shared space with someone else on a satellite...

    1. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by skaeight · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no they couldn't have. For one reason. Bandwidth. They are completely maxed out right now. They couldn't have added 1 more HD channel, let alone 1500 additional HD channels. Each HD channel is something like 15 SD channel.

      The only reason they are able to do this is because they are going to be transmitting using a different band - KA. The current DirecTV sattelites transmit in the KU band. So they'll be using their existing orbital slots 101, 110, & 119 to broadcast on a different wavelenght.

      Unfortunately this is going to be mean a larger dish will be required. Google dish network superdish for an idea of how big it is. Dish Network already does broadcast some local channels in KA band.

    2. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by Casca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think a full HD MPEG2 stream takes up 18Mb/s, however many cable companies and definitely satellite companies compress it down from that.

      What I do know, is that analog channels on cable, look like utter and complete crap on an HD monitor. That, and the Sci-Atlanta box that COX uses upconverts about as well as a OU plays in the Orange Bowl... Digital cable is such a misnomer, I can't believe they get away with selling it as digital.

      --
      Casca
    3. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by TheSync · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spaceway uses digital regenerative switching, so it is not at all like typical geosync comm satellites. But you are right, there is nothing about MPEG-4 on the satellite, it could very well be switching MPEG-2 coded video or even IP (its original mission).

      The funny thing is that MPEG-4 streams are carried within the same 188-byte packet MPEG-2 transport stream that normal MPEG-2 live video streams use.

    4. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

      I find that a beer helps. No, really, patience is required in pointing these multi-bird dishes, and I find a cold beer helps calm the nerves and give you somehting to do during the process.

      I've re-mounted my 3LNB D* dish several times, and I always take out a receiver and an old 13" TV with me to do the job. It may take 30 minuts or so to get it just right, but hey, I' mostly sitting on my butt drinking a beer and watching TV (well, the set upscreen).

      Besides, nothing gives the new neighbors a first impression like seeing the "new guy" sitting on his roof watching TV and drinking a beer.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

      19 Mpbs is the standard (ATSC) for US digital terrestrial HD broadcasts. But trust me, HD looks a lot better at 270 Mbps (HDCAM) rates...

    6. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by doofusclam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Digital cable is such a misnomer, I can't believe they get away with selling it as digital.


      I believe it's because it is, in fact, a digital system.

      You're believing the marketers here by associating digital with 'quality'. Here in the UK we have digital radio (DAB) and due to using the old mp2 codec as rates as low as 64kbits/s it sounds crap. Digital in this case really means 'reliability', as in it'll sound the same each time you play it, not necessary better quality.

      Also, a load of pubs here have 42" cheap plasma screens with 852x480 resolution. That's not quite enough for standard definition TV vertically and looks shit with a heavily compressed Sky Digital feed. The screen is not high res enough to post-process the picture nicely, so there's tonnes of dot crawl, colour bleeding and blockiness. It looks even worse when a new series starts, they must recompress it as the picture is terrible - usually this is sorted out by time they air repeats though.

      Another thing by the way that hasn't been mentioned about mpeg4 vs mpeg2 - yes mpeg4 is a newer and generally better codec but it's also a lot more complex and hard to tune, especially when they're using real-time hardware to do this. Don't assume mpeg4 will be automatically better just because supports higher resolution video.
    7. Re:Satellites are linear not digital by dcm1101 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, there are web sites that allow you to enter your latitude and longitude and the orbital slot of a satellite, and then they do the math for you to get the azimuth and elevation. Or if you're a math geek, you can do the math yourself. Then, if you had an extremely accurate compass/inclinometer you could try to aim the antenna that way. In actual practice, I doubt that would work reliably - hitting a target the size of a car from 22,000 miles away is a very touchy business. Most pros use a compass/inclinometer to get to the right portion of the sky, and then hook up a spectrum analyzer to find the nearest satellite, and then 'stair step' across the arc until they find the bird they want. Being able to ID a satellite by its spectrum plot is a little bit of an art, but allows you to at least confirm that you're looking at a satellite. You can always hook up your IRD at that point to check of it's the right satellite. The problem with just tuning using your receiver on a digital signal, is that below a certain threshold the signal will not lock up, so be prepared to spend all day moving your dish 1/4 of a degree at a time, and waiting 30 seconds after each move to see if it locks up.

      Ironically, the smaller dishes are easier to aim, since their gain is so much lower. Remember, a satellite dish is simply a telescope that operates on microwave frequencies rather than visible light, so a more powerful antenna "sees" a much smaller portion of sky, and consequently gets a much better signal. Having aligned 1.6-meter dishes and 12-meter dishes, I can attest that the 12-meter gets a great signal, but is harder to aim.

  6. Quality of MPEG4 signals? by jfmerryman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone had a chance to personally see MPEG4-encoded HD? Is the quality acceptable compared to the original MPEG2 stream?

    I have to imagine that by recompressing into MPEG4 from MPEG2 (the format the signals are provided in, at least currently), some quality would be lost. The question is, how much quality is DirectTV prepared to sacrifice in order to say that they have the entire country covered with HD locals?

    Personally, I'm sticking with cable because I want the original MPEG2 stream passed through without any recompression, and I don't want to watch TV without DVR features.

    1. Re:Quality of MPEG4 signals? by jchapman16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note that cable providers recompress the original MPEG2 streams themselves to reduce bandwidth used by HD channels.

    2. Re:Quality of MPEG4 signals? by flimflam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, though not at the specific data rates used for broadcast. In general MPEG4 is vastly superior to MPEG2, however. Also, an MPEG2 stream would never be recompressed as MPEG4, the broadcaster would feed the uncompressed signal into the MPEG4 compressor. All in all this is a move to increase quality at the same bandwidth.

      --
      -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
    3. Re:Quality of MPEG4 signals? by TheSync · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has not been proven to me (and my job includes me looking at this) that MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) encoders can do a better job today at the same bitrate as the highest quality MPEG-2 encoders (i.e. the ones that cost $50,000).

      I expect that, like MPEG-2, we will see MPEG-4 encoders doing a better job over time, and I suspect that eventually the best MPEG-4 encoders will be doing a similar quality to the best MPEG-2 encoders at half the bitrate. But that is in the future, especially for HD!

    4. Re:Quality of MPEG4 signals? by Xesdeeni · · Score: 3, Informative

      RawDigits: I would imagine an operation as large as DirecTV is probably not going to be re-encoding an MPEG2 signal, but using a more raw format for HD and compressing it from the 'master' copy just as they do when they convert to mpeg2 now ...

      mecro: The FCC only gave broadcasters a small chunk of the spectrum to broadcast, which means the MPEG2 signal is compressed somewhere between 49-55:1.. That's insane, and MPEG 4 will hopefully lessen the compression ratio.

      flimflam: Yes, though not at the specific data rates used for broadcast. In general MPEG4 is vastly superior to MPEG2, however. Also, an MPEG2 stream would never be recompressed as MPEG4, the broadcaster would feed the uncompressed signal into the MPEG4 compressor. All in all this is a move to increase quality at the same bandwidth.

      For OTA signals, DirectTV and Dish currently have an antenna in the city that receives the analog OTA signal, which they compress for transmission. They only have a direct connection to the national signals they provide to people too far from local affiliates (I believe from NY and LA). It's unlikely they will obtain a more direct connection for digital OTA signals. So it's almost certain that the video will be doubly compressed--MPEG-2 by the channels, MPEG-4 by DirectTV.

      Satellite channels (ESPN-HD, etc.) are currently pulled off of the high bitrate (MPEG-2) satellite feeds and compressed to low bitrate MPEG-2 by DirectTV and Dish. The encoder will likely be MPEG-4 for these types of sources.

      jchapman16: Note that cable providers recompress the original MPEG2 streams themselves to reduce bandwidth used by HD channels.

      I can't speak for every cable provider, but stream analysis done by those of us with FusionHDTV cards (capable of recording cable's QAM modulated HD streams) have shown that the video is not recompressed. It is re-wrapped, with much of the transport stream adjusted, but the data itself is not decompressed and re-compressed.

      Xesdeeni

    5. Re:Quality of MPEG4 signals? by Snwbeast · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've gotten to see a little bit of this, since my company (TandbergTV) is supplying the encoders. The bitrates on the mpeg-4 stream are going to vary from 4mbps to 20 mbps, which in mpeg-4 is pretty good looking. There's a load-balancing system that will adjust a channel's bitrate as it needs more (for say fast-panning scenes in sports). The encoders are installed now in two locations and running, but as with all projects this will take time.

  7. Re:What about receivers? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are DIRECTV's plans on giving their consumers new receivers?

    Bwahahahahahahahaha! Bwahahahahahaha!

    You're a funny guy kusanagi374 (776658)!

  8. Ka spot beams by TheSync · · Score: 5, Informative

    The "killer technology" on the Spaceway birds are their ability to form tight "spot beams" using Ka band (~20 Ghz) downlink signals.

    The spot beams are formed using a 1500 element phased array. The array can form as many as 780 downlink spot beams and 112 uplink spot beams across the US. Compare this with a typical Ku-band (~12 GHz) satellite which has a single beam over the entire US.

    Spaceway uses digital regenerative switching of up to 10 Gbps, as opposed to the analog transponders of most geosynchronous communications satellites (despite the fact that most of those transponders are used with digital services these days).

    Spaceway was originally supposed to provide satellite point-to-point and point-to-multipoint IP connectivity, but that was dropped in favor of providing massive localized HDTV capacity using spot beams.

    Unfortunately, Ka band is more sensitive to rain fade outages than Ku band.

    1. Re:Ka spot beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer, I work on the SPACEWAY project. The rain fade is mitigated by constant updates of weather data (we're talking Gigs per day of data transfer). This data is used to tell the satellite where to pump up the signal to get through the clouds. Areas of clear sky get the signal reduced. This helps deal with rain fade and also prolongs the life of the satellite since it keeps power consumtion low.

  9. the more HD, the merrier by PureCreditor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would love the concept of hundreds or even thousands of HD content. But time warner can't even give me 15 without the "HDXtra" package that's another $9 a month.

    With HD "supposedly" defined to be 16:9, I sincerely despise all those major networks - CBS ABC and NBC that broadcost most of their HD content in 4:3. Only Discover and PBS has true 16:9 HD around the clock.

    Watching Olympics opening ceremony on HD is simply gorgeous. The only thing I need now is CNN HD.

    1. Re:the more HD, the merrier by Satan+Dumpling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of what they have was filmed in 4x3. The major networks are not going to suddenly limit themselves to only 16x9 and change their whole schedule. As more and more new episodes are filmed in 16x9 you'll see more.
      Comcast near Atlanta just added TNT in HD. For some reason they are stretching all 4x3 into 16x9. Now that's REALLY annoying.

  10. Re:Who does the sky belong to? by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    yeah, lets all become commies too and have our government own everything!!

  11. Re:What about receivers? by hollismb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe they have an upgrade/replacement plan where they pay a nominal amount to replace your current TiVo, reciever, or HD TiVo when you exchange it for a new one. The way I read it (which was somewhere else on Slashdot in another TiVo story) was that they obviously won't pay you waht you paid for the HD TiVo, but the newer receivers would be significantly lower in price, and that 'new ' price would pretty much match what they give you for the exchange. Surely they don't want to alienate customers, especially those that are obviously willing to pay for premium hardware/content.

  12. Who asked for higher resolution? by nmg196 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who actually asked for higher resolution? Are they acting on customer demand or have they just decided that we should have it? The reason I say this is that I would rather have higher bandwidth channels than higher resolution ones. Compression artifacts annoy me much more than a low resolution picture does. They don't seem to be able to transmit TV in the current resolution without severely degrading the picture. Any "visualphile" will know that a decent analogue signal usually looks a lot better than it's digital equivalent (ref: I'm comparing Digital Terrestrial to Digital Satellite and Cable services available in the UK).

    Perhaps I'm biassed because I'm in the UK and therefore have 625 lines instead of the appauling 480 line TVs the poor Americans have to put up with (no wonder they're screaming for HDTV!).

    My worry is that even with MPEG 4 (which will probably be recompressed MPEG 2 sources anyway for quite a while) they may not have enough bandwith to send me a 1080 line picture without artifacts...

    Maybe with Fiber To The Home we might actually get enough bandwidth to watch the channels we want at the resolution we want, without thinking that it looks like your TV has gone though 4 copes of RealPlayer...

    1. Re:Who asked for higher resolution? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Any "visualphile" will know that a decent analogue signal usually looks a lot better than it's digital equivalent (ref: I'm comparing Digital Terrestrial to Digital Satellite and Cable services available in the UK)."

      No, it doesn't. A clean analog signal looks better than an overcompressed digital signal, true. But a truly "clean" analog signal doesn't exist.

      Compare the quality of DVD to the much-vaunted Laserdisc. LD is about as close as you can get to a "clean" analog signal, and it still had a number of quality issues (mostly related to color-space compression).

      "They don't seem to be able to transmit TV in the current resolution without severely degrading the picture."

      Evidently your cable and satellite providers in the UK suck. They do here, too. DirecTV's picture is already overcompressed garbage.

      That's why we're so psyched about SPACEWAY - there's plenty of bandwidth to transmit every local channel in the US, in HD, with a decent bitrate.

      "My worry is that even with MPEG 4 (which will probably be recompressed MPEG 2 sources anyway for quite a while) they may not have enough bandwith to send me a 1080 line picture without artifacts..."

      There is plenty of bandwidth with SPACEWAY. Bandwidth will now be in the 10-12MBit range, up from 1-2MBit for DirecTV's current SD service. They're using MPEG-4, too, so that provides an additional quality increase.

      If you're worried about 1080i looking poor at 12MBPS, keep in mind that Microsoft's WMV-HD demos (at 1080p, no less) are in that range. Go download one and take a look for yourself.

      DirecTV also won't be re-encoding MPEG-2 boradcasts - they will get a clean signal that they can encode, just like they do today with MPEG-2.

      "Maybe with Fiber To The Home we might actually get enough bandwidth to watch the channels we want at the resolution we want, without thinking that it looks like your TV has gone though 4 copes of RealPlayer..."

      FTTP is completely unnecessary for the cable company. The coax they have in the ground right now is already capable of delivering 120+ HD channels at full broadcast bitrate (~20mbps). That's only counting the spectrum they are currrently using for analog channels.

      There's plenty of bandwidth with the current coax. There's no need for FTTP just to get decent HD services.

  13. Re:Sat better than cable? Whatever... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, I'd like to have your cable company. SD D* was superior to all the cable channels on my old network, and about the same cost as D*, if you count the TiVo service.

    I've seen my (new) local Adelphia service, and SD looks about the same. I can't say how reliable it is vs D*, as I don't subscribe to cable (a friend has it). If it's anything like the cablemodem sevice, I can live without it. I probably lose 10% of my surf time in any given month to cable outages. In five years with D*, I've lost signal four times - twice due to monstor thunderstorms, and twice with the local feeds died in CO.

    I haven't seen HD yet to compare, as I'm not up for dropping money on an HD D* set right now. Adelphia wants about $45/mo for basic cable service and $55 for digital cable (not including HD). Real TiVo is $13/mo extra and I don't get multi-channel capability. I've got two DTiVos with service for $55/mo from D*.

    Cable can kiss my scrawny white ass already. If the rumors are correct about the new D* system, I'm staying with satellite. 4 tuner headend recorder plus HD or SD set top boxes for the TVs? I'm there, no question. THough I hope that TiVo will have a hand in the interface, it sounds like I'km going to lose that feature, but then it will be no worse than Adelphia's home-grown ungly-child DVR, so the prize still goes to D*.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. Re:Who does the sky belong to? by kcurtis · · Score: 3, Funny
    If it were up to me, I think satellites would only be owned by government bodies so that the services that were provided by these planetary companions would be made available to all citizens.

    Of course, given the previous slashdot article about the Bush adminstration's policy on IATC meeting attendees, only Republicans will be allowed to watch HD satellite tv. And only if they donate $1000 to the GOP.

  15. footprint by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Judging by the area of coverage that satellite claims, it seems to me that even when the 2nd satellite is launched most of the US heartland won't be covered.

    Since I live in the US heartland, I find this very disheartening...

  16. Re:Uh can I have my analog back please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For years I've fallen asleep to tv using it's timer but the volume difference has made that impossible now.

    Quick fix..Goto to a store like musician's friend and buy a two channel compressor/limiter. Sense its the basic ole TV I'm assuming your not using surround sound, anyway.... Plug the audio output of your TV/Cable box into the input of the compressor and then from those outputs to your amp or whatever. You can addressed increases in audio to level it all out. This is off topic. Take your moderator, strike me down with it.

  17. Re:Who does the sky belong to? by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Interesting



    Say a satellite is 10 feet wide, you could fit over 11,000,000 in a straight line from the earth to orbit and still probably wouldn't be able to see the line.

    You can only fit under 8,000 1/64 inch pieces of lint in a straight line on a 10 foot bed sheet

    --
    if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
  18. Let's see... by suitepotato · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. I can and do get HD locals already on my cable system in addition to a dozen other HD offerings.PROBLEM: Neither I nor over 75% of my neighnors can afford HD televisions currently and those who can are only getting the same content as the SD people just sharper picture. FURTHER PROBLEM: Lossy compression whether MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 especially when done repeatedly in line from content originator to my television means HD gives me excellent viewing of MPEG artifacting. EVEN FURTHER PROBLEM: This only plays into the retail equivalent of crack addiction in poorer areas: rent-to-own stores. In the name of getting what the Joneses have now we spend two to three times the retail cost in the long run and finish paying just in time for the thing to crap out at its normal end-of-life.

    2. Satellite cannot give me high speed internet or phone service. In fact, I can get phone over cable or voice over IP or both simultaneously.

    3. Satellite cannot give me interactive video-on-demand including gaming and information services such as those being rolled out now in various systems which will become the normal across the US in a few years.

    Yeah, I really need Murdoch to give me DiVX-style video over satellite loaded ongoing with DRM and compatibility issues and on top of it I have to buy a box that I will need to replace at my cost when they change the technology; and that's going to make me just drop everything else that cable has to offer that DBS doesn't, right? I don't think so.

    I'm a DBS and cable installer as well as support tech and after over a thousand installs, would never switch to DBS so it isn't as though I don't have direct exposure to the technology. It just doesn't appeal to me. I'll wait till we see the fabled LEO constellation of birds giving me high bandwidth and lower latency to portable devices wherever I go, but I won't hold my breath.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:Let's see... by Keith+Russell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the issues you raise in point 1 deal with the transition from NTSC to digital in general. The monitor is still the largest single expense, so it doesn't matter if the transmission medium is OTA, DBS, or cable. And there should be exactly one encode at the uplink/headend, and one decode at the customer's tuner. If your provider of choice is recompressing mid-stream, they've screwed something up.

      These gaming and information services you speak of are already the norm. Perhaps you've heard of the Internet and XBox Live? Maybe if customers were demanding One True Set Top Box that has all these features, you'd have a point. More likely, these features are being crammed into STBs the way Microsoft would cram features into Office, just so they can brag that the "other guys" don't offer Esoteric Feature That Nobody Asked For #7.

      Do you honestly think that cable will have a better track record than DBS on DRM? Name-dropping Rupert Murdoch and Circuit City DiVX won't change the fact that DBS and cable providers will all answer to the Big Media content providers.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
  19. Re:Who does the sky belong to? by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't begrudge them of their money, nor do I begrudge them of their ability to send up satellites on their whim. However, I wonder what the general public is going to benefit from all this private space "littering". Is the benefit from space travel and those little bits of metal flying around the planet only available to those who pay a fee to private companies?

    If it were up to me, I think satellites would only be owned by government bodies so that the services that were provided by these planetary companions would be made available to all citizens.

    You make an interesting point, but after considering it carefully, I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.

    They provide a service that I'm willing to pay for -- media content delivery. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. I don't want the government launching these satellites, because I don't want the government controlling the content. Furthermore, since governments don't own satellite airspace, governments don't get to license it. This leads me to some other questions for you: Because airplanes fly over your airspace, should they be made available to all citizens? It's really only wealthy citizens, businesses, and governments who can own and operate these vehicles -- very similar to satellites. What's the ultimate difference between a company launching a dozen satellites in geosynchronous orbit versus building a vast terrestrial distribution network? Should only governments be allowed to build these networks? In both cases (satellite and wired), the businesses own the infrastructure, and the consumer simply pays for service. It covers both media licensing and distribution costs. This way, the networks are able to get around government censorship of what they broadcast -- terrestrial television and radio broadcasts are still subject to this censorship. I generally do not patronize those services due to this censorship. Personally, I find the censorship far more obscene than the content they are trying to protect me from.

    As far as the service rendered, it's entertainment. Does it benefit us? It depends on how much you value entertainment. One man's junk is another man's gold. When we buy it, it's a choice. When the government provides it, we're all paying for it whether we like it or not.

    Finally, as far as I know, the sky is open to anyone who wants to put something up there (providing that they acquire the necessary licenses from whatever applicable aerospace governing administration for their launch vehicle). There are two problems: building these communication devices is very expensive and putting them in place is extremely expensive. The only groups who seem to have the cash to do such a thing are goverments and businesses. It sounds an awful lot like you're begrudging them of their money and their ability to send up satellites on their whim.

    --

    -Turkey

  20. Re:Sat better than cable? Whatever... by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares what the difference is between sat. and cable? Who cares how high quality the image is? What matters is the content itself and right now it sucks big time. It amazes how much people are willing to pay for utter crap and the privilege of being advertised at. Take the guy who replied to you and stated that he pays close to $130 for TV and internet... I won't call him a fool because it could be worth it to him, but I wouldn't dream of spending a quarter that.

  21. Watch the launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The launch can be seen at the Sea Launch website www.sea-launch.com This was the heaviest launch for Sea Launch to date.

  22. What is the big deal about MPEG4? by pyite69 · · Score: 2

    What makes its compression better? I thought that they didn't define any kind of standard for a codec, which practically guarantees incompatibility problems forever.

  23. Re:IT's ALL LOCAL TV !!! -- WHO CARES! by Inebrius · · Score: 2, Informative

    If I was a DirecTV customer, I would care, as do many others.

    I do not live in a major metropolitan area, so I do not get a very good signal (analog or digital) from the local stations. Many people also have issues due to terrain. With satellite, line of sight is much better (either you get it or you don't), and barring severe weather, the signal is much more dependable.

    I currently get my locals on Dish, just not in HDTV. And due to market rules, I do not qualify to receive the distant network HD feeds. So if they did add locals in HDTV, it would be an appreciated increase in service.

  24. I wish by Gruneun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Surely they can just upgrade the software...

    Not in a hardware-based solution like their current chipset... and don't think that my HD TiVo and I don't wish otherwise.

    You can bet I'll be on the phone with a CSR to get some free, upgraded equipment and/or hefty credits. I'm not too worried, though. DirecTV been pretty fantastic about that sort of problem in the past and their publicist has already said they're going to attempt to make everyone happy about the changes.