While any response is better than no response, I still don't get Dish's thinking. A conus transponder is a conus transponder, whether it's on 61.5 or 72.7, except for the fact that the sats currently at 72.7 don't have a beam pattern including PR/USVI. There is also the matter of invalidating hybrid arc customers such as myself, which I think cost Dish a pretty penny in the aggregate.
So, moving HD to 72.7 and SD to 61.5 causes maximum pain all around: greatest cost to Dish on 1000.4 retrofits and WHUPs, and thoroughly alienating PR/USVI HD customers. What compelling reason does Dish have for inflicting such pain?
Honestly, the biggest reason for migrating customers from "hybrid" setups was to make channel migrations less involving with the customers. If a customer is all EA, the channels can be moved freely within the arc and the move would not be perceived by the end user. It also allows us to keep from channel redundancy. We do not have to carry locals from traditionally EA markets on WA satellites, and vice versa. During migrations and missing channels in hybrid setups, assume that a phone call ends up in a credit on an account if a channel goes offline for a customer. Even at a $1 per customer bit, that could be more costly then proactive correction over time.
Thanks for the info Tony but something that you mention doesn't make sense. If Dish Network only supports installations of 119/110 in the PR/VI area. Why we don't receive the following HD channels that are on 110?
So I researched this part of the question, mainly so I could better explain it. Believe me, my explanation may be crazy but its probably more easily understood.
Earth is roughly 24901.55 miles in circumference at the equator, which is where we orbit our satellites 22,300 miles above the surface. We pay to put the satellite in a particular place. We also pay for the frequencies we can transmit on and apply for the right to broadcast to certain areas. Satellite 77 is a case in point on broadcasting rights: It originally was solely used to broadcast signal to Mexico. We applied to allow it for use to broadcast in the U.S. and now it is, making a long story short. I am sure there was a cost and limitation on frequencies used, along with bandwidth allowed. That's a bit off from what I really wanted to explain.
For the rest of this, we'll say Earth is a large basketball (24901.55 miles in circumference, so I guess really REALLY large) and the satellite (doesn't matter which orbital at this point) is a school bus-sized flashlight. At the distance the flashlight is from the earth, it can only shine light on about 1/3 of it. Being that the flashlight is limited on usable power, both by regulation and longevity for the light itself, it can only output a certain amount of power. Focusing the flashlight allows for the same amount of power to "brighten" particular areas. That being said, each flashlight is focused on a particular area and not all areas.
This translates back to satellites as each satellite can only focus on a certain area and provide a signal to those areas. Based on the angle at which the satellite is in relation to its target area, the footprints on the earth can be elongated etc, but in order for the signal to be strong it is focused at a particular portion of the visible area. While PR/VI customers are supported, only a portion of that focused beam (transponders) are intended for the area. Being that each transponder is only allotted a certain amount of bandwidth, they can only provide a certain number of channels per transponder. That being said, CONUS subscribers do benefit from better support, being that there are more transponders focused on the mainland then in your area. Honestly, it is the same issue faced by Alaska and Hawaii subscribers. This however is subject to change as migrations happen, as well as when new satellites are launched. Echostar 14, the MAR 2010 addition to the orbiting fleet, was launched with the intention of bringing more channels to those subscribers in the limited support areas, and that intention has been realized with the addition of channels available in the area. I imagine that this increase in channels will continue to happen as things shift in the future.
On a related note, MPEG4 equipment is now the new installation requirement for PR/VI customers. Logical reasoning behind this, in my opinion, is that better compression technology will free up bandwidth and allow more channels in the future to the area, allowing many more channels on the same beam. While hurrying this along would be nice, there are customers with MPEG2 in the area so the switch cannot be instantaneous. Much like the digital transition, the preparation takes time. I am only speculating on the future for PR/VI customers, but it makes sense to me that changes for the better are coming.
