DirecTV's 1st MPEG4 Satellite Launch Successful 291
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.
In this kind of setup... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In this kind of setup... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about receivers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who asked for higher resolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Sat better than cable? Whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
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*.
Re:For someone not hip on the lingo (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up the words "Monopoly" and "Oligopoly"
Short answer is, they dont *have* to care. You want them more than they need you.
Let's see... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who does the sky belong to? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:For someone not hip on the lingo (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sat better than cable? Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the more HD, the merrier (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Full HDTV Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
DirecTV on the other hand hints at MPEG4 one day, but no info on what they plan to do with the equipment. Considering the Voom customers will be looking at the HD stuff, they will be the first ones interested in the migration. For me, it's just stupid to buy equipment I know won't work to see more then the pitiful selection of existing HD channels they have.
The $200 rebate is a nice, but pitiful offer. At least it expires June 30th, so hopefully by then DirecTV might be more talkative.
It was funny too, my Voom installer (who also does DirecTV) called to tell me about it. I was the third person that day who asked about MPEG4.
Re:For someone not hip on the lingo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who asked for higher resolution? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you were in the US, your primary concern would be, how can I add some interesting channels from Europe, Asia, South America, or Australia, instead of being limited to the rather mediocre US channels. I am eagerly waiting for the day when I can subscribe to channels (or individual programs) from around the world and get them streamed over the Internet.