dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5118
share rss forum feed

McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX
reply to motorola870

Re: We need a new push for NasaTV and Cartoon Network HD

I would also very much like to see BBC America HD. Jeremy Clarkson is my idol.


prisaz

join:2008-08-11
Germantown, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to McBane

Many channels have been pushed for, and continually get voted for over at Verizon. But it is VERY clear that Verizon will provide these when they see fit, regardless of what customers want. BBC America HD has over 400 votes. NASA has 112 and contiunes to climb. I reguested NASA officially in 2010, on their voting board. Previously it had been requested years prior to that, in a channels requested thread that a Verizon Senior Manager (Joe) had promised to compile statictics from and create a channels vote board in their forums. It was added to the Ideas Board, and any statistics are kept well hidden. Other than the fact you can go look at how many times something was voted for.

I had sorted content requests, and the number of request, and filtered duplicates from a single customer, out of a channels request thread, gave it to them, and it was trashed. This was prior to any Ideas Board being created for requesting channels. Go tell them you want NASA, and see if it matters.

NASA
Status: Accepted
It is in the content queue, but lower priority.

OH someone asked to see the queue, and I got a good laugh out of that request. I hardly think Verizon would release that!

»forums.verizon.com/t5/Share-Your···p/240550



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

NASA HD is available for free via satellite.

Also, if it weren't a capacity issue, then Verizon should've carried NASA HD the day it launched. NASA does not charge providers anything to carry their channel.

Pentagon HD is another free-to-carry government channel that Verizon should have on their service.

Verizon can try and pretend it's not a capacity issue all they want but we all know the way they've set up the TV portion of their service their "state of the art" fiber optics are just as capacity limited as cable's copper is.


billhere

join:2011-10-21
Santa Monica, CA

I guess I didn't realize that NASA wasn't carried at all by Verizon until I searched for the channel Sunday night.

Actually, FoxNews relayed the NASA HD feed for several minutes as they covered the rover landing at 10:30 Pacific Time.

I went to bed shortly after they announced that the landing was successful.

I'd like NASA HD, but I'd much rather see the Pac 12 network carried by Verizon this fall.

Expand your moderator at work


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to McBane

Re: We need a new push for NasaTV and Cartoon Network HD

Science Channel carried NASA TV originated programming for years, might still. HDNet had the launches. So there was really very, very little NASA TV we weren't getting on FIOS in HD.



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

Click for full size
NASA HD 1
Click for full size
NASA HD 2
Click for full size
NASA HD 3
Click for full size
NASA HD 4
said by Greg2600:

Science Channel carried NASA TV originated programming for years, might still. HDNet had the launches. So there was really very, very little NASA TV we weren't getting on FIOS in HD.

That's not true anymore. NASA HD has a lot of content and HDNet is now AXS TV. I haven't seen any NASA coverage since the rebrand.

FiOS needs NASA HD. The distribution feed is a perfect fit for FiOS - it's 720p MPEG-2 with a bitrate of around 15 Mbps. Verizon can add it to their system without having to re-encode it since its bitrate is below 18 Mbps and it's not H.264.

Here's some screenshots from NASA HD's coverage of Curiosity on Mars taken straight from their C Band distribution feed.

NASA HD is already scheduled to be carried by Google Fiber on day one. No surprises there, since it is offered for free and since Google Fiber is IPTV based it will be the first TV system with truly 'unlimited' capacity for HD channels unlike the current QAM-based Verizon FiOS.


JeepMatt
C'mon the U
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast

If you all remember, before I left, I told you it would be some time before there'd be any new HD - because there simply isn't any room for it! (Minus space saved for the Olympics channels).

But, in regards to Nasa TV, it's a puzzling channel.

People clamor for it on the Verizon boards, the Comcast boards, the Time Warner / BHN boards. No one carries it. But yet small 3rd tier cable co's such as Service Electric in Central PA carry both the SD and HD simulcasts. It is strange that no big name MSO provides it.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

Bright House actually does carry NASA HD now.



sikorski

@verizon.net
reply to McBane

yes I agree about the NASA tv. I have a 52 in tv and I am a science buff. We want NASA TV

Expand your moderator at work

prisaz

join:2008-08-11
Germantown, MD

1 edit
reply to JeepMatt

Re: We need a new push for NasaTV and Cartoon Network HD

Directv Has the NASA channel, and if I go upstairs to the TV that also has SAT feeds, I can watch it. But I would rather see it on FiOS.



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

DirecTV does not carry NASA HD.

Expand your moderator at work

prisaz

join:2008-08-11
Germantown, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to 09129800

Re: We need a new push for NasaTV and Cartoon Network HD

said by 09129800:

DirecTV does not carry NASA HD.

Yes but at least it does carry NASA SD. So if Verizon was to have the HD feed, they would have a one up on others. They can't seem to see the forest for the trees. I do agree though some of the other channels should be higher priority. But is looks as if we have had much of nothin added in the way of HD from Verizon.

xocsucram

join:2008-10-02

1 edit
reply to motorola870

lol i watched the mars landing coverage on their website, it was a bunch of pointless crap

they even had to have stupid interviews with pop stars and other crap inbetween all the technical talk

the 5 minutes of coverage CNN gave was basically all you needed.

and there was 2-3 specials on Sci or NatGeo the very next day that broke down how the rover was built what all it could do and what the mission entailed...

then after the landing, like 4 hours later, (4hours of splashscreen) they had some horrible Q/A session where you couldnt even hear the media and just saw one of the JPL guys sitting there for minutes on end then just talking/answering the question we had no idea what was about...that went on for an hour, then it was a splashscreen for hours till the next program starts...idk why theres only 2 broadcast providers in the entire nation that waste bandwidth carrying it, cause thats clearly Emmy award winning production which would atract viewers for all the other Mars landings that happen each week...oh wait

id rather watch Cars.TV and see the creepy greased hair guy talk about the Lady in the Lake for the 50th time than the 1 time in the last 30 years something Nasa did was this interesting...which was only because of their Youtube over hyped dramatic "7 minutes of terror" video which they didnt make for the last rover...cause Youtube wasnt around back then to use as free marketing and "buzz" lol

all their programming is on their website and reuped to their youtube, the landing video isnt even 10 minutes, you watch it, and move on, thats 9 minutes of 24 hours of just 1 day of broadcast schedualing in the TV world...doesnt matter if they distribute the channel for free, it still costs tv providers money to re-distribute it and you dont even know if advertisers would even pay to fill those splashscreen timeslots to make sense to carry the channel when their biggest event only had about 200k "actual" viewers online during the stream when that 10 minute window of the landing was happening and most of the time it was barely over 100k viewers



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

It doesn't cost TV providers shit to redistribute the channel. All Verizon has to do is point one of their C Band dishes at their SHE over to AMC-18 (which they probably already have one pointed at as NASA is not the only network distributed on that satellite), and then send the LNBF's signal to a tuner (which, thanks to NASA HD being completely free, it uses the standard DVB-S and no encryption so a little $50 consumer-grade tuner would receive the channel just fine).

Then they just send that feed from the SHE to all their little VHOs.

A Verizon executive makes more money in 10 seconds than it would cost them to add NASA HD.

The reason why NASA's content is everywhere is because the channel is government-produced. This means nothing on it is copyrighted and everything is in the public domain. If Verizon adds the network you can record anything from it and upload it to the Internet to your heart's content.

The reason why we want Verizon to carry NASA HD is because of the lack of competence in the quality department when it comes to NASA and amateurs redistributing NASA TV content over the Internet. NASA's "HD" Internet stream is a pathetic 2 Mbps.

If I lived in Kansas City one of the first things I would try with Google Fiber's network is putting up a C Band satellite dish, grabbing NASA HD's feed off of satellite (it's 720p @ ~15 Mbps), and then putting that feed up as a live stream on the Internet. My amateur efforts would put NASA's current pathetic ~2 Mbps Ustream Internet stream to shame.


Reyr

join:2009-01-03
Wilmington, DE
reply to JeepMatt

WE actually got one new hd channel...bbc america. surprised?


vectorvictor

join:2012-08-21

Nope. And I figure we'll probably be getting Cartoon Network HD here shortly. Still, what, three HD slots left after BBC America took one of them?

As for NASA HD, probably not until they resolve their space issues once and for all. I could see something like NASA HD being part of a MPEG-4 tier if and when they pull the trigger on that.



09129800

join:2012-06-27
New York, NY

Except that NASA HD's distribution feed is MPEG-2, so if they put it on a MPEG-4 only tier they'd have to re-encode it to MPEG-4 and lose quality. I thought the whole point of transitioning to MPEG-4 was to free up some space and to stop re-encoding all these channels to MPEG-2 and reducing quality in the process?

I'd rather they use a "MPEG-4 only tier" for new channels that are actually distributed natively as MPEG-4 - like all the premium channels - so they could stop re-encoding them to MPEG-2.

NHK World HD is another great channel I'd like to see added to FiOS, and it is distributed via satellite as 1080i MPEG-4 @ 12 Mbps.