"Most" MPEG4 HD can't go to 101, there isn't enough bandwidth. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, why would they try to crowd 150 channels on 101, leaving several dozen idle transponders on 99/103? If they don't plan to have MPEG4 SD duplicates on 101, it would make more sense to 'spread out' and increase the bandwidth for all their HD channels, and have PQ that's significantly better than any other cable/satellite company.
Lots of RV/Boat Customers are going to be UPSET
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 100
- Views 10K
- Status
"Most" MPEG4 HD can't go to 101, there isn't enough bandwidth. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, why would they try to crowd 150 channels on 101, leaving several dozen idle transponders on 99/103? If they don't plan to have MPEG4 SD duplicates on 101, it would make more sense to 'spread out' and increase the bandwidth for all their HD channels, and have PQ that's significantly better than any other cable/satellite company.
What do you think they will do with the 101 ?
Provided the SD are going away ....
Why not more alot of the stuff over there ?
They are gonna keep the 99, 101 and 103 going strong, they may as well use them.
101 is mostly nationwide where much of 99 and 103 are spot beams for locals.They are currently fitting 5 HD channels in a 36MHz wide Ka transponder and I forget the exact width of a Ka but its around 27MHz, which can almost fit 4 HD channels. Maybe compression has advanced enough for that to work today? Anyway, I think they will use 101 for nationwide programming in HD if SD is given the boot.
If they drop SD, could or would they have to pump the signal strength to prevent HD rain fade. Or would that open up another can of worms. Is there a technical reason they can't increase the signal strength.
The only way to reduce rain fade is to do the following.
Larger dish
Higher gain LNB
Increase wattage per transponder. I remember when Dish got Echostar 5 They where phase locking transponders and where running 240 Watts per transponder.
Move from KA to KU Band signals
I don't know, if I had to bet I'd say we'll see MPEG4 SD duplicates of everything on 101. That would make life easier for boat/RV owners since they could get every channel - and the MPEG4 SD quality would be a lot better than the current MPEG2 SD quality since they wouldn't be so bandwidth starved on 101.
If they put some HD channels on 101, I expect they will crank up the bandwidth and the PQ will increase. I don't see them using the same bit rates as currently and just wasting over half of their available CONUS transponders on 99/103.
Ka is 36 MHz, Ku is 24 MHz. With their current CONUS parameters they get about 34 Mbps out of a Ku transponder and 40 Mbps out of Ka. They can fit 4 or 5 HD channels in a Ku transponder, but why would they when that would leave a ton of Ka transponders completely unused? Go from a 6.5 Mbps average to a 10 Mbps average for better quality, even if you only fit 3 HD channels per transponder on 101 and 4 on 99/103 that's fine you'd have more than enough room and the quality increase would be noticeable for many.
Why would they duplicate ?
Everyone who can see 99/103/110/119 can see 101.
The only time you duplicate is when you attempt to move channels from 101 to other satellites.
It’s like the same with Dish. Anything on 129/110 can easily go to 119, but not vice versa.
There are FCC limits in place about how strong the signal can be on the ground. They are pretty much maxed out in southern Florida, and it is a little less strong in the rest of the south, a little less strong again in the midwest/east, and least strong in the desert SW/southern California (that's why it is hard to get much better than an 85 reading on Ka in Los Angeles) They provide more power for the areas that see heavier rain often, less where heavy rain is less common. That power curve is set when the satellite is built, so they can't increase the power in LA or Chicago without making it over legal limits in Miami.
The reason they might duplicate is because it is much more expensive to get a dish for boats/RVs that sees 99/103. If you want in-motion, forget it. They are $20,000 for an in-motion Ka capable dish for a boat, and not available at any price for an RV. Providing everything on 101 would make things less expensive for boat/RV customers, especially for in-motion solutions.
You'd still have your rain fade backup (for what little the difference between Ka and Ku really is...not much in my experience) but this way have it for EVERY channel, not just the ones that happen to be on 101.
If they have some HD channels on 101, I can already imagine the bitching from people who are upset that their favorite channel is still on 99/103, and claim some sort of conspiracy or ask who they can call to demand that be changed.
This may sound like a stupid question and forgive my ignorance. Why not just have more satellites cover more parts of the country. I know cost is probably the biggest reason, but would that help with spot beams and bandwidth per satellite if they were split by region.
Satellite slots are in short supply. Spacing is tightly controlled. Different spots are allocated to different countries.
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
I know the DTVLA Ku transponders are 24Mhz wide but I thought the US side was a little wider. Anyway, there are a few tricks you can play to get a little more RF band width and resulting data rate from each Ku transponder but I doubt the current engineering and management would take on the added hassle. My recollection was around 8Mbps for HD but maybe that's changed.
There would be many reasons not to put up more satellites to cover more parts of the country. One would be no way to license another usable DBS slot for the US, another is really big cost, another is a completely new LNBF and or larger dish to accommodate another orbital slot. Plus why would ATT buy and launch another satellite plus possible spare if their goal seems to be cut the cord on satellites in the future?
There would be many reasons not to put up more satellites to cover more parts of the country. One would be no way to license another usable DBS slot for the US, another is really big cost, another is a completely new LNBF and or larger dish to accommodate another orbital slot. Plus why would ATT buy and launch another satellite plus possible spare if their goal seems to be cut the cord on satellites in the future?
Last edited:
They do have multiple satellites sometimes, but only one can be broadcasting from the same location at once except for spot beams. Not sure why you think having more would help with bandwidth, especially if they were somehow dividing up the country. What you suggest would cost more and have zero benefit.
You do realize the more people who use the satellite the more powerful they need to make the signal so it lasts for everyone.
Yes, but the satellite's transmit power level won't help with the available bandwidth from an orbital position.
As that is determined by the satellite's payload combination of frequency, polarization, and possibly frequency reuse schemes through spatial separation of up/downlink beams (i.e., spotbeams).
Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
I don't know that market, I just know I've heard they are $20K - and so large they won't fit an RV. I suppose you can make anything fit if you try hard enough, but the one I saw linked wasn't designed/supported for RV use. I'd hate to spend that kind of money and not have a warranty because I was using it against manufacturer directions.
- Status
