Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

SWM 16 in the works...


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   dave29

dave29

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,921 posts
Joined: Feb 18, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 02:03 PM

Yes, there is going to be an SWM16. It's apparently not conjecture - read the third post in the thread. From a technology point of view it will be apparently look like two SWM8s (or maybe (also) an SWM dish with two outputs - not sure which, or maybe even both). Not sure what they will do about DECA.


That's a shame. A 2 wire dish would require 2 DECA clouds.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,284 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 02 September 2009 - 02:04 PM

I see nothing in the attachment listed in this link that says anything about an SWM16. It's just conjecture in the replies to the thread.


Note who wrote the reply... ;)

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#28 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,089 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 02 September 2009 - 02:47 PM

I'm by no means "on the inside" for this, other than working with things like this.
Two SWM(8s) could be mated with a DECA crossover filter, and have a "single line" become a dual line. This isn't a stretch, but seems a bit of a kludge. Single Wire Multi-switch becomes "dual line multi-switch".
Each tuner needs only one transponder, but if they keep the current 100 MHz "spacing", then they not only will be below the guide channel, but have to also go below the DECA "block" too. This would mean only the new wideband receivers [H/HR23 and up] would work on this system, since the earlier receivers "stop at" 950 MHz.
Since it's been a couple of years with the current SWM system, "there may be" improvements in the chips to narrower the bandwidth to maybe something as low as 50 MHz, which would give each tuner one transponder. Firmware changes in the SWM "I would think" would be all that is needed, since the receiver should simply "ask" for channel/transponder "x" and the SWM sends it on "the tuner's channel".
"If this" is true, then it would be backwards compatible, which is a much better solution.
It seems as if they double up on the cables, or cut the channel bandwidth in half.
In this case "their mileage may vary", but I wait to see what they end up doing. :)
A.K.A VOS

#29 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 02:59 PM

That's a shame. A 2 wire dish would require 2 DECA clouds.


No it wouldn't. Since DECA uses a frequency range that doesn't overlap with SWM, the DECA RF could be passed between independent SWM circuits, creating one DECA cloud that communicates on two (or more) 8 channel SWM circuits.

The real question is, how many nodes within one DECA cloud does the DECA spec support. Beyond that maximum, one would then have to create multiple DECA clouds and bridge them at the IP layer instead of at the RF layer.

#30 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 03:11 PM

No it wouldn't. Since DECA uses a frequency range that doesn't overlap with SWM, the DECA RF could be passed between independent SWM circuits, creating one DECA cloud that communicates on two (or more) 8 channel SWM circuits.

The real question is, how many nodes within one DECA cloud does the DECA spec support. Beyond that maximum, one would then have to create multiple DECA clouds and bridge them at the IP layer instead of at the RF layer.


Assuming it is based on MoCA it is either 8 nodes for MoCA 1.0 or 16 for 1.1

What is the status of the MoCA specification?

The MoCA 1.0 MAC/PHY spec was ratified two years ago. Products with MoCA 1.0 embedded are available from several companies and include set top boxes, routers and gateways, bridges and ONTs.

MoCA 1.1 extension has been ratified and offers additional benefits. These include parameterized quality of service (PQoS) for provisioning and bandwidth management of real time data requests for video applications.

MoCA 1.1 with packet aggregation also increases the net throughput performance from 110 Mpbs to 175 Mpbs.

MoCA is the only organization that actively promotes its net throughput metrics. While other may claim higher performance, these are generally theoretical bit rates. This is the difference between what is promised and what is received.

This new extension also increases the network from the current eight nodes to 16 nodes.


http://www.mocallian...outus/faq.php#7

#31 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 03:24 PM

I'm by no means "on the inside" for this, other than working with things like this.
Two SWM(8s) could be mated with a DECA crossover filter, and have a "single line" become a dual line. This isn't a stretch, but seems a bit of a kludge. Single Wire Multi-switch becomes "dual line multi-switch".


I don't think it's a kludge at all. The main utility that SWM technology provides comes from the ability to connect mulltiple DVRs with only a single cable run to the location of each DVR (including a single cable run to a group of 2-4 DVRs), and being able to supply multiple DVRs off that single cable run by using simple RF splitters on the cable line.

I don't see a big downside to having run another cable line to support more tuners past the maximum that one SWM cable can supply. It's still a whole lot simpler that the "old technology" of needing four cable runs to a central multiswitch location and then two lines from that location to every DVR.

#32 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,089 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 02 September 2009 - 03:36 PM

I don't think it's a kludge at all. The main utility that SWM technology provides comes from the ability to connect mulltiple DVRs with only a single cable run to the location of each DVR (including a single cable run to a group of 2-4 DVRs), and being able to supply multiple DVRs off that single cable run by using simple RF splitters on the cable line.

I don't see a big downside to having run another cable line to support more tuners past the maximum that one SWM cable can supply. It's still a whole lot simpler that the "old technology" of needing four cable runs to a central multiswitch location and then two lines from that location to every DVR.

We all have opinions, though we may not agree, it doesn't make anyone wrong.
One of the plans with SWM was to be able to utilize pre-wired [CATV] coax, which a dual SWM wouldn't support [as well].
"If a hard drive" can get twice as big and be half the price, within a couple of year [especially after I've bought the older one], then it would seem the chips used in the SWM could have also improved.
A.K.A VOS

#33 OFFLINE   David MacLeod

David MacLeod

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,689 posts
Joined: Jan 29, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 03:49 PM

2 au9s dishes, 2 swm-8 = SWM16+ :) :)
Dave MacLeod
S.I.H.

#34 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,163 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:03 PM

We all have opinions, though we may not agree, it doesn't make anyone wrong.
One of the plans with SWM was to be able to utilize pre-wired [CATV] coax, which a dual SWM wouldn't support [as well].
"If a hard drive" can get twice as big and be half the price, within a couple of year [especially after I've bought the older one], then it would seem the chips used in the SWM could have also improved.


The problem is that existing equipment doesn't have the new chips, and it may not be as simple as new firmware. If the tuners can't physically tune different or narrower frequencies then they have to stay with the existing system.

I would be willing to bet real money that a SWM LNB that supports 16 tuners would simply be a two output SWM LNB with double the circuitry, and that they solve DECA by bridging the two SWM networks.

#35 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:03 PM

We all have opinions, though we may not agree, it doesn't make anyone wrong.
One of the plans with SWM was to be able to utilize pre-wired [CATV] coax, which a dual SWM wouldn't support [as well].
"If a hard drive" can get twice as big and be half the price, within a couple of year [especially after I've bought the older one], then it would seem the chips used in the SWM could have also improved.



Having to use multiple SWM circuits does not mean that pre-wired coax can't be used. It only means that you have to be able to tap into that coax with an SWM line at multiple points where there will be less than 8 tuners downstream of each tap point. Adding more SWM channels per SWM line only reduces that problem somewhat, but it has nothing to do with whether or not either method supports the use of pre-wired coax.

I'm all for squeezing as many SWM channels into a single coax as possible, but even if the number of channels is increased, there will still be a limit, and beyond that limit, pre-wired coax runs will have to be split and supplied by multiple SWM circuits.

#36 OFFLINE   dsw2112

dsw2112

    Always Searching

  • Registered
  • 1,936 posts
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:04 PM

2 au9s dishes, 2 swm-8 = SWM16+ :) :)


I'm sure you're just joking around, but multiple SWM8's can be utilized on one dish currently.

#37 OFFLINE   David MacLeod

David MacLeod

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,689 posts
Joined: Jan 29, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:06 PM

I'm sure you're just joking around, but multiple SWM8's can be utilized on one dish currently.

I know, and yes I was joking.
Dave MacLeod
S.I.H.

#38 OFFLINE   dsw2112

dsw2112

    Always Searching

  • Registered
  • 1,936 posts
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:12 PM

I know, and yes I was joking.


I figured. :D

But seriously, I think D* looking at additional technologies and uses for SWM is a great thing. SWM16, DECA, who knows what else may follow. Speculation is always part of the fun in these types of situations and I say bring it on :hurah:

#39 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,089 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 02 September 2009 - 04:22 PM

The problem is that existing equipment doesn't have the new chips, and it may not be as simple as new firmware. If the tuners can't physically tune different or narrower frequencies then they have to stay with the existing system.

I would be willing to bet real money that a SWM LNB that supports 16 tuners would simply be a two output SWM LNB with double the circuitry, and that they solve DECA by bridging the two SWM networks.

When I first read/heard about this, I was thinking of the dual output. Then after a bit more thinking, narrowing the channel bandwidth, seems more like the way they'll do it.
I don't follow your first "problem". "the chips" are in the SWM, not the receiver. The receiver [tuner] tunes to only one channel [of the many on a transponder], so none of this is on the receiver side. A receiver can tune to both SWM & non SWM channels. The SWM simply acts as a "pre-tuner" narrowing down the signals coming from the dish [and converting them]. A tuner in "non-SWM" mode is being fed 500 MHz of channels. In current SWM mode is fed 100 MHz. "A channel" is somewhere around 5-6 MHz, so "really" the transponder bandwidth, would be the minimum bandwidth [needed] for "a SWM channel" [which I think is about 36 MHz].
A.K.A VOS

#40 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 05:09 PM

When I first read/heard about this, I was thinking of the dual output. Then after a bit more thinking, narrowing the channel bandwidth, seems more like the way they'll do it.
I don't follow your first "problem". "the chips" are in the SWM, not the receiver. The receiver [tuner] tunes to only one channel [of the many on a transponder], so none of this is on the receiver side. A receiver can tune to both SWM & non SWM channels. The SWM simply acts as a "pre-tuner" narrowing down the signals coming from the dish [and converting them]. A tuner in "non-SWM" mode is being fed 500 MHz of channels. In current SWM mode is fed 100 MHz. "A channel" is somewhere around 5-6 MHz, so "really" the transponder bandwidth, would be the minimum bandwidth [needed] for "a SWM channel" [which I think is about 36 MHz].


What does each of the current 102 Mhz wide SWM channels contain? Multiple transponders? Do you know how many?

#41 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 05:36 PM

What does each of the current 102 Mhz wide SWM channels contain? Multiple transponders? Do you know how many?


The pdf I linked to earlier says 1 32mhz channel based on operator modulation scheme which would imply a standard single ku transponder. Keep in mind that a single Ka transponder from the spaceway sats is 65mhz and it still has to work with a SWM.

#42 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,284 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:01 PM

What does each of the current 102 Mhz wide SWM channels contain? Multiple transponders? Do you know how many?

1 channel per transponder. Allows DIRECTV lots of flexibility and future, albeit limits the number of channels a SWiM can carry today.

Cheers,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#43 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,284 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:11 PM

I'm by no means "on the inside" for this, other than working with things like this.
Two SWM(8s) could be mated with a DECA crossover filter, and have a "single line" become a dual line. This isn't a stretch, but seems a bit of a kludge. Single Wire Multi-switch becomes "dual line multi-switch".
Each tuner needs only one transponder, but if they keep the current 100 MHz "spacing", then they not only will be below the guide channel, but have to also go below the DECA "block" too. This would mean only the new wideband receivers [H/HR23 and up] would work on this system, since the earlier receivers "stop at" 950 MHz.
Since it's been a couple of years with the current SWM system, "there may be" improvements in the chips to narrower the bandwidth to maybe something as low as 50 MHz, which would give each tuner one transponder. Firmware changes in the SWM "I would think" would be all that is needed, since the receiver should simply "ask" for channel/transponder "x" and the SWM sends it on "the tuner's channel".
"If this" is true, then it would be backwards compatible, which is a much better solution.
It seems as if they double up on the cables, or cut the channel bandwidth in half.
In this case "their mileage may vary", but I wait to see what they end up doing. :)

What if they put 8 channels on the center conductor and 8 on the braid? :)

(Just being goofy, wasn't being serious...) :D

Am I right thinking a "two wire system" would require filters at the low end for the communication channels as well as the high end for the transponder channels?

Thanks,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#44 OFFLINE   dsw2112

dsw2112

    Always Searching

  • Registered
  • 1,936 posts
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:25 PM

What if they put 8 channels on the center conductor and 8 on the braid? :)

(Just being goofy, wasn't being serious...) :D


And with Quad shield we can get 32 channels on the braid :D

#45 OFFLINE   k2tech

k2tech

    Cool Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:26 PM

Speculation threads are certainly "fun".....of course 90% of the information is typically wrong.....but they are fun. :D


Doubtful it is speculation....came down from Val Allen who runs the D* Installer Forums and he pre-tests all the equipment for D*. I don't believe he would post this without being sure....

I guess you may mean "speculation" is about how it would work :lol:

#46 OFFLINE   bobnielsen

bobnielsen

    Éminence grise

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,194 posts
  • LocationBainbridge Island, WA
Joined: Jun 29, 2006

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:33 PM

And with Quad shield we can get 32 channels on the braid :D


And if you separate the strands, you can get many more :D

#47 OFFLINE   rudeney

rudeney

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,266 posts
Joined: May 28, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 07:00 PM

When I first read/heard about this, I was thinking of the dual output. Then after a bit more thinking, narrowing the channel bandwidth, seems more like the way they'll do it.
I don't follow your first "problem". "the chips" are in the SWM, not the receiver. The receiver [tuner] tunes to only one channel [of the many on a transponder], so none of this is on the receiver side. A receiver can tune to both SWM & non SWM channels. The SWM simply acts as a "pre-tuner" narrowing down the signals coming from the dish [and converting them]. A tuner in "non-SWM" mode is being fed 500 MHz of channels. In current SWM mode is fed 100 MHz. "A channel" is somewhere around 5-6 MHz, so "really" the transponder bandwidth, would be the minimum bandwidth [needed] for "a SWM channel" [which I think is about 36 MHz].


The SWM places 8 (plus one for guide data) streams that take up 102mhz of bandwidth each onto the coax. The specific 8 streams that are carried are requested by the connected tuners using a separate control frequency. Now, it may be possible to build a SWM that can cram the same data stream into 51mhz of bandwidth and thus be able to pack 16 streams into the space where we have 8 today. However, the tuners in the receivers would still need to be changed so they can decode a stream from those 51mhz bands instead of the 102mhz they have today (and yes, I know it's 100mhz + 2mhz for buffer, but I think you know what I'm saying). Maybe the tuners are capable of being programmed to do this, maybe not.

#48 OFFLINE   evan_s

evan_s

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,136 posts
Joined: Mar 03, 2008

Posted 02 September 2009 - 07:12 PM

The SWM places 8 (plus one for guide data) streams that take up 102mhz of bandwidth each onto the coax. The specific 8 streams that are carried are requested by the connected tuners using a separate control frequency. Now, it may be possible to build a SWM that can cram the same data stream into 51mhz of bandwidth and thus be able to pack 16 streams into the space where we have 8 today. However, the tuners in the receivers would still need to be changed so they can decode a stream from those 51mhz bands instead of the 102mhz they have today (and yes, I know it's 100mhz + 2mhz for buffer, but I think you know what I'm saying). Maybe the tuners are capable of being programmed to do this, maybe not.


51mhz is narrower than the bandwidth of a single TP from spaceway 1 or 2 so I don't think there is any way they could do that.

#49 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 07:31 PM

The SWM places 8 (plus one for guide data) streams that take up 102mhz of bandwidth each onto the coax. The specific 8 streams that are carried are requested by the connected tuners using a separate control frequency. Now, it may be possible to build a SWM that can cram the same data stream into 51mhz of bandwidth and thus be able to pack 16 streams into the space where we have 8 today. However, the tuners in the receivers would still need to be changed so they can decode a stream from those 51mhz bands instead of the 102mhz they have today (and yes, I know it's 100mhz + 2mhz for buffer, but I think you know what I'm saying). Maybe the tuners are capable of being programmed to do this, maybe not.


I don't think the tuners would have to change. Right now, to tune a single video channel the tuners are looking at a subset of the whole SWM channel that contains a full transponder's worth of data that is on the channel. If the SWM instead sent only half of the transponder's bandwidth down each SWM channel the tuner would simply do what it normally does when the video channel of interest is on the lower half of a 102 Mhz wide SWM channel today. As VOS pointed out in an earlier post, the SWM is simply translating a wide range of RF signals into a fixed range of RF that the existing tuners are already capable of being tuned to. As long as SWM technology does not require the full transponder's worth of data to be available at the tuner input for single channel tuning to work right, putting more channels on the SWM line (with less data on each channel) would only require a software update to the current SWM capable receivers.

This assumes that the transmission/receiving method that is being used could still work even if a tuner can't "see" a whole transponder's worth of data at one time... and maybe that's a bad assumption.

Edited by cartrivision, 02 September 2009 - 07:38 PM.


#50 OFFLINE   netraa

netraa

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 483 posts
Joined: Mar 27, 2007

Posted 02 September 2009 - 07:40 PM

One more thing to consider, a dual lead SWiM lnb departs (in a small, but significant way) from the single point of entry for a current SWiM LNB.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...