Get the Best IPTV Service
Finally DirecTV News | Page 2 | SatelliteGuys.US

Finally DirecTV News

Toggle sidebar
Status
Please reply by conversation.
Scott Greczkowski said:
8psk is not only used for HDTV, it can be used for standard def too!

...

Now imaging if you have 12 SD channels on 1 transponder, with 8PSK enabled they could put 36 channels on a transponder with no worse picture quality we have today.
Click to expand...
Or, god forbid, you could have those same 12 SD channels with better picture quality than they had previously, plus add a few more channels to that transponder to boot (just not 24 new ones).

The downside is that it will probably take awhile to replace all of the old receivers that don't have 8psk capability. I think that makes it more likely that 8psk would be used for new HD channels.
 
David_C said:
The downside is that it will probably take awhile to replace all of the old receivers that don't have 8psk capability. I think that makes it more likely that 8psk would be used for new HD channels.
Click to expand...


I guess it would all depend on what is cheaper. A free Super Dish, or a free upgrade receiver. Whichever is cheaper would be the way for Dish to add more channels!
 
Well Charlie's head could be spinning since he just put in a DVR fee only to have DIRECTV take it out... If DIRECTV does roll with that, it will force Dish to go back to no fees.
 
So, any mention of timeframe for this to happen? Should I go ahead now with the switch from E* to D* to get the good deal on the DirectTivo units???
 
Scott Greczkowski said:
8psk is not only used for HDTV, it can be used for standard def too!

Imagine if 1 HDTV channel took 1 transponder of satellite space, however with 8psk they can squeeze in 3 HD channels on 1 transponder, with no loss of quality.

Now imaging if you have 12 SD channels on 1 transponder, with 8PSK enabled they could put 36 channels on a transponder with no worse picture quality we have today.

Dish is now putting 8psk in all of its boxes. Even the 111 has 8PSK built in.

"8PSK it's not just for HD anymore!" (Sounds like an orange juice commercial!)
Click to expand...
Totally untrue - it's help to add 33% only :(. Not the 300%.
 
So it would allow 16 channels to fit onto a transponder instead of 12. Is it really worth swapping out all of those receivers to get just 33% more bandwidth? For 300% yes, 33% I am not sure. If they could make up for how much more room HD takes up than SD by doing this, then this would be the HD solution that is needed. Even if it only made up for part of it, this would really help them. I am guessing that all those receivers that would replace the current ones would only be SD, not HD.
 
Why exactly is it that there would have to be a receiver swap out for their entire customer base? I don't think that DirecTV will ever do that as the costs for them to swap up 10,000,000+ customers receivers for free would be in the billions for them.

DirecTV will most likely offer a free DVR with free basic DVR service for a customer commitment that can be upgraded to real TIVO software service. The existing Hughes HDVR2(3) might already even support both 8PSK and MPEG4 for all we know. If not, then it will be based on a newer DVR set top box that will be developed.

They do not have to disable other types and generations of receivers. Currently, if you do not have a Phase III dish, you can not view channels at 110 or 119, but you can only view the channels at 101. Just as that, if your receiver does not support MPEG4 or 8PSK, then you cannot watch the channels that are encoded using those formats. You can still watch the channels encoded in formats that your set top box will support.

Who is to say that DirecTV has plans to encode all of their core channels into this 8PSK format? What if they left the channels at 101 alone and only used 8PSK encoding on 110, 119 and any other positions that they support later?

Bill T.
 
I was thinking about this last night...

Since I have no real answer yet, I did some thinking.

If I were DirecTV I would make people pay for their own upgrades. $99 for a DVR.

However in order to get people to upgrade I would ad a handfull of new channels, I would also move some of the sports packages to be available to only those with Sports Packages such as the NFL or NBA, so people would need new receivers to see these channels.

This would help with their pirarcy problem greatly, and for now only the people that wanted those channels and whatever new ones that pop up.
 
33% more bandwith does not sound like much, but when you consider that DBS satellite slots are a very limited resource it makes it far more valuable. DIRECTV has 46 transponders, this is like getting 15 more... enough for 30-45 HD channels.

This is especially true with HDTV. DIRECTV can only fit 1 HD channel/transponder now with QPSK, unless they start compressing to fit 2. With 8PSK they can fit two whole HD channels at the full 19.2 mbit/sec. They can put three HD channels on 8PSK with less compression than the 2 on QPSK would have been, plus the odds are better that all three channels peaking at the same time are less than just two peaking at the same time.
 
Dirk you should be able as a new customer to get the Hughes E-86 for less than $500. No I don't expect it to be $199 but I know it works unlike the 811, it is available unlike the 811 and it offers ch.3/4 output unlike the 811.
 
boba said:
Dirk you should be able as a new customer to get the Hughes E-86 for less than $500. No I don't expect it to be $199 but I know it works unlike the 811, it is available unlike the 811 and it offers ch.3/4 output unlike the 811.
Click to expand...
That last argument point is just plain stupid. Who the heck pays extra for the receiver, extra for the programming (or maybe OTA for free), and hooks it up via a modulated SD signal? If you really have to have channel 3 or 4, go get a RF modulator at Target for 20 bucks. 99.9% of the people who get this receiver wouldn't even miss the lack of modulated signal.

I noticed that it doesn't come with 300 Ohm antenna inputs. Guess I really shouldn't buy it now. :rolleyes:
 
I was asking a co-worker of mine yesterday who is from England about Sky+...he knew of it, but they never had it. Shame, I was kind of curious to hear more about it. However, someone on DBSForums.com posted this link to Sky+ that has a demo of their current DVR box. It's ugly, but it seems pretty cool! :D


Sky+


~Alan
 
Perhaps if they had some free channels that could only be viewed by the new receivers then that would encourage people to pay for their own upgrade then after a while DirecTv could switch the rest out that did not pay for the upgrade.
 
Yeah that would be real fair and would also tick off a lot of people. If they are smart they will either swap every one out for free or make everyone pay don't treat some people and not others. Its bad enough that new subscribers get the deals they get while loyal customers continue to get very little...
 
QPSK vs. 8PSK Bandwidth

mike123abc said:
33% more bandwith does not sound like much, but when you consider that DBS satellite slots are a very limited resource it makes it far more valuable. DIRECTV has 46 transponders, this is like getting 15 more... enough for 30-45 HD channels.

This is especially true with HDTV. DIRECTV can only fit 1 HD channel/transponder now with QPSK, unless they start compressing to fit 2. With 8PSK they can fit two whole HD channels at the full 19.2 mbit/sec. They can put three HD channels on 8PSK with less compression than the 2 on QPSK would have been, plus the odds are better that all three channels peaking at the same time are less than just two peaking at the same time.
Click to expand...

Utilizing the same transponder bandwidth, changing the modulation scheme from QPSK to 8PSK increases the bit rate throughput by 50% not 33% (nor 2X or 3X as postulated in another post). The amount of transponder bandwidth required (ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL) is contingent on the modulation rate. With a 4 state modulation scheme, which QPSK is, a dibit (2 bits) is assigned to each modulation state. If we label each modulation state A, B, C, D, one can assign say bits 01 to A, 10 to B, 11 to C and 00 to D. So for each modulation event, 2 bits of data is sent. In other words, the bit rate is twice the modulation rate with QPSK. With old BPSK 2 state modulation scheme the modulaton rate and bit rate were the same as only 1 bit (a 1 or a 0) could be assigned to either modulation state. With an 8 state modulation scheme such as 8PSK, a tribit (3 bits) is assigned to each of the 8 modulation states. There are 8 possible combinations of 1's and 0s in a tribit. With 8PSK the bit rate is 3 times the modulation rate. Accordingly, 8PSK provides a 50% increase in bit rate over QPSK (ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL). Unfortunately, the term "bandwidth" is now commonly used interchangeably with bit rate which can cause confusion. Given that the maximum bandwidth across a transponder is a finite resource, one way to increase data across the transponder is to use more sophisticated multi-state modulation schemes. The next theoretical step would be to use a 16 state modulation scheme and transmit 4 bits per modulation event.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Flash Sale Popup