Dish Network/SES Americom was granted to moved AMC 16 to 118.75
- Thread starter Dave1997
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 115
- Views 26K
I also think they should move all of the national HD content to 118.7. This would really help free up space on 110 for local HD spotbeams.
Is there any other plans for Dish to add even more slots that can be covered with one dish? I can see even more slots being added to fulfill the bandwidth needs. I'd say we have not seen the end to the additioinal slots. Eventually we would get back to a SuperDish sized dish unless they can find enough slots close together. If they get 4.5 degree spacing this would help them out GREATLY!
Is there any other plans for Dish to add even more slots that can be covered with one dish? I can see even more slots being added to fulfill the bandwidth needs. I'd say we have not seen the end to the additioinal slots. Eventually we would get back to a SuperDish sized dish unless they can find enough slots close together. If they get 4.5 degree spacing this would help them out GREATLY!
All of those are around the same area that would work on a Dish500, two of them being in between the 110 and 119 lnbf's. 109, 110, 113, 117, 118, 119 would be six slots. Add 129 and you got seven slots.
According to last System Info tables what Dish airing for the 118.0W (118.75W) will have follow transponder's parameters:
701, 1,118.0W,11720000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
702, 2,118.0W,11740000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
703, 3,118.0W,11760000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
704, 4,118.0W,11780000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
705, 5,118.0W,11800000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
706, 6,118.0W,11820000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
707, 7,118.0W,11840000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
708, 8,118.0W,11860000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
709, 9,118.0W,11880000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
710,10,118.0W,11900000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
711,11,118.0W,11920000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
712,12,118.0W,11940000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
713,13,118.0W,11960000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
714,14,118.0W,11980000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
715,15,118.0W,12000000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
716,16,118.0W,12020000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
717,17,118.0W,12040000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
718,18,118.0W,12060000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
719,19,118.0W,12080000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
720,20,118.0W,12100000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
721,21,118.0W,12120000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
722,22,118.0W,12140000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
723,23,118.0W,12160000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
724,24,118.0W,12180000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
HD carriers candidats: 4,5,8,15,16,19,20,21,22,24 - 10 total, ie ~30 HD channels.
My guess the HD tpns will be used H.264 compression and latest stat-mux gadgets for squize 3 channels per each tp.
(Thanks Hokie for raw data)
701, 1,118.0W,11720000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
702, 2,118.0W,11740000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
703, 3,118.0W,11760000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
704, 4,118.0W,11780000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
705, 5,118.0W,11800000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
706, 6,118.0W,11820000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
707, 7,118.0W,11840000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
708, 8,118.0W,11860000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
709, 9,118.0W,11880000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
710,10,118.0W,11900000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
711,11,118.0W,11920000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
712,12,118.0W,11940000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
713,13,118.0W,11960000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
714,14,118.0W,11980000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
715,15,118.0W,12000000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
716,16,118.0W,12020000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
717,17,118.0W,12040000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
718,18,118.0W,12060000,00260000,1/2,L,QPSK
719,19,118.0W,12080000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
720,20,118.0W,12100000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
721,21,118.0W,12120000,00215000,2/3,R,TC QPSK
722,22,118.0W,12140000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
723,23,118.0W,12160000,00260000,1/2,R,QPSK
724,24,118.0W,12180000,00215000,2/3,L,TC QPSK
HD carriers candidats: 4,5,8,15,16,19,20,21,22,24 - 10 total, ie ~30 HD channels.
My guess the HD tpns will be used H.264 compression and latest stat-mux gadgets for squize 3 channels per each tp.
(Thanks Hokie for raw data)
Last edited:
wow 1/2 and 2/3 FEC rates... This is a lot of error correction. I wonder if they are trying to compensate for the smaller dish (i.e. overcome adjacent satellite interference).
I wonder if they will change the tables? If it really is a symbol rate of 21.5 at 2/3 FEC QPSK they are looking at only 26.4 mbit/sec... 1/2 at 26 is 23.96 mbit/sec... Compare that to 105 (AMC-16's twin) they are running 26 at 2/3 or 31.9 mbit/sec for standard definition....
I wonder if they will change the tables? If it really is a symbol rate of 21.5 at 2/3 FEC QPSK they are looking at only 26.4 mbit/sec... 1/2 at 26 is 23.96 mbit/sec... Compare that to 105 (AMC-16's twin) they are running 26 at 2/3 or 31.9 mbit/sec for standard definition....
Could anyone venture to guess if a (a=1) Invacom QPH-031 Circular and Linear Quad Polar LNB/LNBF would work for 118.75/119 as well (if not better) than a Dish 500+/1000+ ?
And yes, I realize that would not be DishPro but Legacy.
And yes, I realize that would not be DishPro but Legacy.
Scott Greczkowski said:Ok if I counted correctly, they are currently using 9 transponders for national hd. By National HD I mean channels like HBO HD, Discovery HD, the VOOM HD channels, Universal HD, ESPN and ESPN2 HD etc, I did not count any networks (ABC, etc) which are on conus transponders which are HD.
Ok so only 9 transponders for the national HD channels.
So on 118.7 they have 24 transponders, with todays national HD channels they still have 15 more transponders which they can use for more HD or for LIL or internationals.
By moving the 9 transponders to 118.7 and if the got rid of the duplicated HD channels on 61.5, 110, 129 and 148 that would open up 19 transponders which could be used for other things.
On 129 they are using 6 transponders for national hd
on 61.5 they are using 6 transponders for national hd
on 110 they are using 3 transponders for national hd
on 148 they are using 4 transponders for national hd
This is why moving ALL national HD to 118.7 makes sense.
Thats my opinion on it anyways
GOD NO!!!!
148 has FAR SUPERIOR bitrates on HBO-HD, SHO-HD and HD-PPV than 110 does - in some cases 60% better. And KCBS-DT is still 1920x1080i at a good bitrate (better than I see off the air locally).
Leave 148 alone!!!!
Besides, if what is stated on post 105 is correct, there are only 10 HD Transponders available on 118 - a gain of only 1 from the 9 you counted for.
If they do that, we will most likely see HDLITE on all those transponders exactly as we saw HDLITE start with Voom and 3 channels per transponder.
The effort to stop HDLITE has failed. The effort now must be preserving 148!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
If the effort to stop HD-Lite has truely failed, then there is no saving 148 from the same fate. I think the effort to stophdlite is still alive and kicking.HDTVFanAtic said:
mike123abc said:
Does it matter that those TPs are going to be Turbo Coded QPSK? Does that change the bandwidth?
goaliebob99 said:If this happens dish will wish that it didnt...
Easy to say....but, that did not stop them reducing the MonstersHD and Equator down to crappy HDLite.
If you are really going to get anything done, PLEASE get it done before the James Bond Marathons on Voom
HDTVFanAtic said:
The effort never had any chance of sucess and of course those transponders will be HD Lite. Why wouldn't they be?
Dish has absolutly no reason to not reduce every single HD channel they carry - now and in the future - to as little rez / bitrate, whatever as they can get away with. Neither do they have any reason to not require you to upgrade your hardware if you want to continue to view those degraded channels.
For those of you that still don't get it, Dish is going to push the HD envelope just as far as they can right now. Why? Because they can. Most of you currently have little or no choice if you want any HD at all.
Now if "D" or Cable or Fios or anyone else should start to raise the bar, then "E" will be forced to improve but as for now they've got you and they know it. Will it last forever? I doubt it but a year or so from now none of you will remember what "E" did anyway.
waltinvt said:
Sad but true. Dish learned a long time ago that quantity sells more than quality on DBS/Cable. Having a huge list of HD channels will sell a lot more subscriptions than a few high quality ones. Most people cannot see the difference anyways even with side by side comparisons. Even most of those that can see a difference get used to HD Lite and are just happy to have the channels they want in better than SD...
mike123abc hit the nail on the head. Most people will not know that it is HD-Lite because they will have never seen it. Later on Dish and Direct could advertise that they have made an improvement on the quality of the programming when more bandwidth becomes available when they offer the true HD quality.
