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

DIRECTV Satellite Discussion D-14 @99W


  • Please log in to reply
2977 replies to this topic

#901 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:54 PM

Yeah, since there is really no room in the current stack of three 500 MHz wide blocks separated by 200 MHz guard bands, the LNBFs connected to external SWiM units will either have to move the converted RDBS band outside the stack "electrically" by converting to a frequency somewhere above 2150 MHz. Or move it "physically" by re-tasking the flexports.

 

 

Going back to this discussion, I have a question. Is using 200 MHz for guard bands really necessary? If Directv did introduce a new LNB, would smaller guard bands be an option? I know it isn't the same thing, but there are some pretty small guard bands of only a few MHz between transponders.

 

I realize that even if you can shrink the guard bands you probably can't eliminate them entirely, but if were possible to do so, you'd get 200 MHz between 750 and 950, and another 200 MHz between 1450 and 1650. Hey, 400 MHz, exactly what is needed for RDBS!

 

Unless there is a dormant LO at 14.95 GHz to allow current LNBs to place RDBS at 2350 - 2750 MHz, it would seem a new LNB would be required to receive RDBS. At that point, maybe shrinking the guard bands is an option. Just as an illustration, let's say we use a 50 MHz guard band instead of 200 MHz, and widen the IF range by 75 MHz on either end. If I've done the math right, this solution requires only two LOs; one for Ku at 10.475 GHz (or 14.925 GHz) and one for Ka and RDBS at 18.975 GHz:

 

  B band   175 - 675 MHz

  A band   725 - 1225 MHz

  RDBS     1275 - 1675 MHz

  Ku          1725 - 2225 MHz

 

This might make it more likely upgrading would require only a new LNB to handle A band and RDBS from D14 @99W and RDBS from D15 @101W, because it is expanding the signal range by a very small amount. It would also leave higher frequencies free in case Directv wanted to add even more capacity down the road.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


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

#902 OFFLINE   LameLefty

LameLefty

    I used to be a rocket scientist

  • Registered
  • 12,181 posts
  • LocationMiddle Tennessee
Joined: Sep 28, 2006

Posted 28 October 2013 - 10:25 AM

So they narrowed it down by 15 days.  :rolling:

 

That's a big deal if you're the guy or gal responsible for coordinating travel schedules for people out to Kourou, getting range clearance for the launch, coordinating deliveries of hydrazine, coordinating tracking assets, scheduling work shifts for satellite controllers, etc.  Expect to get a tighter date probably by mid-December. Well, actually, I bet Directv, SS/L and Arianespace already have a "NET" (No Earlier Than) date on their internal calendars but the actual targeted launch date is pretty fluid and may change from week to week as things come down to the wire.


"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Directv since 1997
Will Work for Beer


#903 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,692 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:33 AM

Going back to this discussion, I have a question. Is using 200 MHz for guard bands really necessary? If Directv did introduce a new LNB, would smaller guard bands be an option? I know it isn't the same thing, but there are some pretty small guard bands of only a few MHz between transponders.

 

I realize that even if you can shrink the guard bands you probably can't eliminate them entirely, but if were possible to do so, you'd get 200 MHz between 750 and 950, and another 200 MHz between 1450 and 1650. Hey, 400 MHz, exactly what is needed for RDBS!

 

Unless there is a dormant LO at 14.95 GHz to allow current LNBs to place RDBS at 2350 - 2750 MHz, it would seem a new LNB would be required to receive RDBS. At that point, maybe shrinking the guard bands is an option. Just as an illustration, let's say we use a 50 MHz guard band instead of 200 MHz, and widen the IF range by 75 MHz on either end. If I've done the math right, this solution requires only two LOs; one for Ku at 10.475 GHz (or 14.925 GHz) and one for Ka and RDBS at 18.975 GHz:

 

  B band   175 - 675 MHz

  A band   725 - 1225 MHz

  RDBS     1275 - 1675 MHz

  Ku          1725 - 2225 MHz

 

This might make it more likely upgrading would require only a new LNB to handle A band and RDBS from D14 @99W and RDBS from D15 @101W, because it is expanding the signal range by a very small amount. It would also leave higher frequencies free in case Directv wanted to add even more capacity down the road.

Well these number will certainly work theoretically, even though this would mean the Ka B and RDBS bands will be inverted.

 

The problem of course is that beyond the same question with the first suggestion of will the present SWiM modules accept these different frequencies, we mainly need to know the real reason for the need of a 200 MHz guard band? And only the engineers at DIRECTV and maybe Zinwell can answer that for certain, which they won't, or at least not publicly of course since its proprietary and corporate confidential information.

 

Just like, why the need for a 102 (102.06 specifically) MHz spacing for the SWiM carriers? This seems excessive as well.

 

I can't believe these design decisions are just arbitrary.

 

For instance, the new DIRECTV LA LNBF is designed to receive a new 10.95-11.2 GHz band in addition to the current 11.450-12.2 GHz one in preparation for the IS30/31 birds when launched.

 

And DIRECTV now uses a second 13.1 GHz L.O. for the present 11.450-12,2 GHz band on this LNBF which drops the converted IF from the old DLA LNBF IF band of 950-1700 MHz down 50 MHz to 900-1650 MHz (though inverted now) to produce a 200 MHz IF guard band spacing with the new band for this LNBF as well.

 

Again, why this magic 200 MHz guard band? :shrug:   


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#904 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:09 PM

I made the unspoken assumption that inverted bands aren't a problem, since the BBC inverts the B band the same way and receivers have no problem with that. However, there would be an alternate scenario I didn't post using 50 MHz guard bands and three LOs (for Ku, RDBS/B band, and A band) that runs from 50 MHz to 2150 MHz - the benefit being the top frequency isn't any higher than it is now. It would require a new BBC with an LO of 2200 instead of 2400 like the current one to maintain the 2150 MHz top frequency for HD receivers connected in legacy mode. That would avoid the SWM having to deal with inverted bands, in case that's a problem. The new "SUP-2200" BBC would still utilize inverted bands, with two bands inverted instead of just one in the current BBC.

 

The 102.06 MHz SWM channel width is an interesting example. That leaves guard bands of only 65-75 MHz between transponders. The SWM is doing something sort of like the LNB (and BBC) is by shifting frequencies. Obviously I have no idea how it is implemented, but since has to shift frequencies anywhere in the range of 250-750, 950-1450 or 1650-2150 to one of the 9 SWM channels, it "seems like" it uses some sort of variable/programmable LO, or a sequence of LOs or even multiple LOs at the same time. Or at least the net effect is as if it is doing this, even if it is actually implemented in a completely different manner.

 

If the SWM can work with 65-75 MHz guard bands, despite having more complicated variable frequency shifting requirements, why couldn't the LNB? One answer to that question is that perhaps the need size of a required guard band is dependent on the magnitude of the frequency shift. A 15 GHz LO may need a bigger guard band than a 1.5 GHz LO would. Maybe VOS or one of the other guys with some experience in that world can comment on that.

 

The need for flexibility in the frequency shifting of the SWM may explain why SWM channels are the size they are. It may be easier to implement as a two stage process, with first stage only able to make gross adjustments to put the transponder somewhere in the 102 MHz channel, and the second stage making a fine tuning adjustment to put it exactly where it is required. Since there is some frequency drift in an LNB the tuner has to handle the transponder being off by at least 1 or 2 MHz, so the fine tuning doesn't need to be perfect.

 

Who knows, maybe the tuner can handle the transponder being off by a lot more, so long as any part of it is at the center frequency, and the 102.06 MHz channel width is as wide as it is due to the transponder being able to be off by 30 MHz+ and still successfully tuned by the receiver. That would make the frequency shifting job for the SWM a lot easier.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#905 OFFLINE   HarleyD

HarleyD

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,326 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2006

Posted 29 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

That's a big deal if you're the guy or gal responsible for coordinating travel schedules for people out to Kourou, getting range clearance for the launch, coordinating deliveries of hydrazine, coordinating tracking assets, scheduling work shifts for satellite controllers, etc.  Expect to get a tighter date probably by mid-December. Well, actually, I bet Directv, SS/L and Arianespace already have a "NET" (No Earlier Than) date on their internal calendars but the actual targeted launch date is pretty fluid and may change from week to week as things come down to the wire.

 

I understand all that, which makes this updated window actually pretty limited as far as furthering the ability to make actual plans.  It only clarifies an anticipation window a little.

 

The difference between Feb 1 and Feb 28 is still great enough that the contingencies and considerations you name still can't really be firmed up or nailed down based on that window.  You wouldn't want hydrazine and satellite controllers sitting around for four weeks waiting to be used because you planned around the earliest possible date.

 

They probably won't be able to make any meaningful commitments of resources until the mid December time-frame you referenced.

 

That's what I'm looking forward too.  Firm dates.  Punch lists.  Measurable, event-driven movement.

 

I'm not too demanding.  :righton:


"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
--Frank Zappa

#906 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

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

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

Wouldn't they already have hardware for this stuff in the pipe and training going on and plans announced if they planned to use this commercially and they're launching in the Spring?



#907 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:14 PM

Depends on how quickly they're going to use RDBS and what it will be used for. It will take time to get the satellite positioned after launch, and then they need to test everything. They'll have a lot of new Ka bandwidth to play with at first, so there probably isn't any urgency to utilize the RDBS transponders right away.. Maybe they'll launch D15 before any new equipment is introduced, so they can do some final beta testing.

 

Or maybe we can take the silence to mean they planned ahead and designed existing equipment with RDBS in mind :)


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#908 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,554 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:33 PM

.....

Or maybe we can take the silence to mean they planned ahead and designed existing equipment with RDBS in mind :)

This is what I have heard implied by people who would or should know. And Its also what I expect to be honest. We won't need any new equipment to get anything off the new birds. How or why I have no idea technically.



#909 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:25 PM

I know this was discussed a few months ago but I don't recall ever seeing anything conclusive. Does Directv have Ka licenses for 101? I decided to read that patent posted way back for the selectively reflective surface on a LNB and what it actually lays out is this:

 

The reflective surface sits in the middle of the arm, in between the focal point of the dish and the 101 feedhorn. It reflects Ku, and passes Ka, so the Ku feedhorn moves to the near end of the arm next to the dish. Thus there are 3 Ka feedhorns in the usual spot. Drawings show the center feedhorn for 101 can "optionally" be slightly smaller since it doesn't need to receive down to 17.3 GHz like the 99 and 103 do (i.e., no RDBS) It also mentions that the efficiency of the Ka feedhorns for 99 and 103 will be improved by not having their geometry compromised due to the Ku feedhorn for 101 located between them. Anything that could possibly help even a little with rain fade will be welcomed by many, I'm sure!

 

The patent states that Directv has licenses to broadcast Ka from 101, and has applied for licenses to broadcast RDBS from 99 and 103. The filing date on this patent was in 2008, so things may have changed since then, but unless they've since given up that Ka license for 101 they should still have it. We know D14 will be broadcasting Ka hi and RDBS from 99, and that D15 has RDBS, Ka and Ku transponders, but don't know for sure where it will go.

 

This begs a few questions:

 

1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.

 

2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.

 

3) Did Directv get the RDBS license for 103 the patent says they applied for? Unless D15 is going to 103, which seems unlikely but isn't impossible, they don't have anything publicly announced that would provide that. But that doesn't mean if they introduced a new LNB they wouldn't want to give it the capability of receiving it if they added it later.

 

4) Do the current LNBs have that "slightly bigger" feedhorn the patent says is necessary to receive RDBS in addition to the Ka with the same feedhorn? It doesn't show dimensions, so it would take someone who is an expert in this field to calculate what the dimensions would be for each and compare to the current SL3/SL5.

 

5) If they add Ka lo and Ka hi from 101, and RDBS from 99 and 103, it seems they almost have to add more cables for a (legacy) LNB, as utilizing 2350 - 2850 on all four cables wouldn't provide nearly enough bandwidth. In fact, they wouldn't be able to fit on six cables without going above 2150 MHz! This is maybe what was behind the references I found in the DSWM patents & paper to the current SWM solution "not providing enough flexibility to increase the number of inputs". One would assume they'd go above 2150 MHz before going to 8 cables, but if by the time that's necessary there are DSWM solutions with as many as 26 tuners this would be an issue only for commercial/MDU markets, not residential, so who knows?


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#910 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 November 2013 - 12:27 AM

to answer to the questions, someone would disclose confidential info , which is not happen before official statements come out

or we will get devices [switch, LNBF, etc] in our hand;

we could get spectrum though, but without proper LNBF [RDBS] it would be daunting task



#911 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:37 AM

to answer to the questions, someone would disclose confidential info , which is not happen before official statements come out

or we will get devices [switch, LNBF, etc] in our hand;

we could get spectrum though, but without proper LNBF [RDBS] it would be daunting task

 

 

How so? The first three are about FCC filings, which are public info. I admit the 4th probably treads far too close to releasing confidential info for anyone who works for Directv.

 

The last shouldn't have been numbered, it was more my speculation that I was looking for someone to poke holes in. I certainly wasn't trying to invite Directv employees to tell me if I'm right or not.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#912 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:25 AM

How so? The first three are about FCC filings, which are public info. I admit the 4th probably treads far too close to releasing confidential info for anyone who works for Directv.

 

The last shouldn't have been numbered, it was more my speculation that I was looking for someone to poke holes in. I certainly wasn't trying to invite Directv employees to tell me if I'm right or not.

I hope somehow someone will find a way to give us some clues ... :)



#913 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,554 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:35 AM

I know this was discussed a few months ago but I don't recall ever seeing anything conclusive. Does Directv have Ka licenses for 101? I decided to read that patent posted way back for the selectively reflective surface on a LNB and what it actually lays out is this:

 

The reflective surface sits in the middle of the arm, in between the focal point of the dish and the 101 feedhorn. It reflects Ku, and passes Ka, so the Ku feedhorn moves to the near end of the arm next to the dish. Thus there are 3 Ka feedhorns in the usual spot. Drawings show the center feedhorn for 101 can "optionally" be slightly smaller since it doesn't need to receive down to 17.3 GHz like the 99 and 103 do (i.e., no RDBS) It also mentions that the efficiency of the Ka feedhorns for 99 and 103 will be improved by not having their geometry compromised due to the Ku feedhorn for 101 located between them. Anything that could possibly help even a little with rain fade will be welcomed by many, I'm sure!

 

The patent states that Directv has licenses to broadcast Ka from 101, and has applied for licenses to broadcast RDBS from 99 and 103. The filing date on this patent was in 2008, so things may have changed since then, but unless they've since given up that Ka license for 101 they should still have it. We know D14 will be broadcasting Ka hi and RDBS from 99, and that D15 has RDBS, Ka and Ku transponders, but don't know for sure where it will go.

 

This begs a few questions:

 

1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.

 

2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.

 

3) Did Directv get the RDBS license for 103 the patent says they applied for? Unless D15 is going to 103, which seems unlikely but isn't impossible, they don't have anything publicly announced that would provide that. But that doesn't mean if they introduced a new LNB they wouldn't want to give it the capability of receiving it if they added it later.

 

4) Do the current LNBs have that "slightly bigger" feedhorn the patent says is necessary to receive RDBS in addition to the Ka with the same feedhorn? It doesn't show dimensions, so it would take someone who is an expert in this field to calculate what the dimensions would be for each and compare to the current SL3/SL5.

 

5) If they add Ka lo and Ka hi from 101, and RDBS from 99 and 103, it seems they almost have to add more cables for a (legacy) LNB, as utilizing 2350 - 2850 on all four cables wouldn't provide nearly enough bandwidth. In fact, they wouldn't be able to fit on six cables without going above 2150 MHz! This is maybe what was behind the references I found in the DSWM patents & paper to the current SWM solution "not providing enough flexibility to increase the number of inputs". One would assume they'd go above 2150 MHz before going to 8 cables, but if by the time that's necessary there are DSWM solutions with as many as 26 tuners this would be an issue only for commercial/MDU markets, not residential, so who knows?

 

 

Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely.  I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.



#914 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,692 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:33 AM

Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely.  I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.

 

Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely.  I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.

That would be my guess as well;

 

With D10 ailing and some of it's spotbeams problematic from the start, I'd look for D15 to have a Ka band payload as fully B-band like D10 and 11's are, and go to 103 as it's "normal" operating slot as the new 103cb replacing D10 which may be relegated as a backup in-orbit-spare.

 

And in addition provide a "full" CONUS wide RDBS capability from 103 as the actual "RB-2," (assuming Spectrum-5's challenges have all been fully quashed now.) as opposed to the current spot-beamed RB-2A payload aboard D12 used for advanced market testing purposes I think. 

 

However, since D15 is to be equipped with a reportedly 30 transponder Ku band payload as well. It could be used to swing over to 101 or some other Ku band slot and provide transponder capacity in an emergency.       


Edited by HoTat2, 04 November 2013 - 09:37 AM.

DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#915 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,092 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:57 AM

<snip>

1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.

<snip>

 

 

Yes they do.  In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:

 

"We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, 101° WL, and 103° WL) in the Ka-Band spectrum." (emphasis added)

 

 

<snip>

 

2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.

 

<snip>

 

It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:

 

"In 2007, the FCC adopted new service and licensing rules for broadcasting satellite services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-

25.25 GHz bands, or 17/24 GHz BSS. This spectrum, also known as the "reverse band" (in that transmissions from these

satellites to consumers would occur in spectrum currently used for uplinking programming to traditional DBS satellites), could

provide a new source of additional DTH capacity. DIRECTV currently holds authorizations for satellites in this band at two

orbital locations. However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU

network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,

our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)

 

Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.


Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#916 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,692 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:44 AM

Yes they do.  In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:

 

"We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, 101° WL, and 103° WL) in the Ka-Band spectrum." (emphasis added)

 

 

 

It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:

 

... However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU

network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,

our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)

 

Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.

Humph;

 

I wasn't aware of any foreign challenges under the auspices of the ITU to DIRECTV's full CONUS use of the 99W slot for RDBS service. Only the Netherlands based company "Spectrum-Five's" persistent wining to such use at 103, which I thought had already been thoroughly quashed by the FCC's International bureau which would take precedence over any ITU ruling for domestic satellite service to the CONUS.

 

Guess not based on this statement in the 10K filing.

 

But then again, I've always been poor at understanding such legalistic procedures and regulations anyhow. International or domestic. :)


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#917 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:00 AM

Yes they do.  In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:

 

"We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, 101° WL, and 103° WL) in the Ka-Band spectrum." (emphasis added)

 

 

 

It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:

 

"In 2007, the FCC adopted new service and licensing rules for broadcasting satellite services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-

25.25 GHz bands, or 17/24 GHz BSS. This spectrum, also known as the "reverse band" (in that transmissions from these

satellites to consumers would occur in spectrum currently used for uplinking programming to traditional DBS satellites), could

provide a new source of additional DTH capacity. DIRECTV currently holds authorizations for satellites in this band at two

orbital locations. However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU

network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,

our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)

 

Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.

 

 

Why would having RDBS licenses at 99 and 103 preclude a license at 101? I assumed since RDBS spectrum was very similar to Ka, it would have the same 2* separation requirement. Is that not the case?

 

If the 2* separation is the issue, given that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, is there any chance they could ask for and receive permission to operate RDBS from 101 so long as their hold/operate from 99 and 103 as well? Or does the FCC stick to their rules, even if the potential interference would be a company interfering with itself? The patent suggesting they might size the 101 feedhorn to receive RDBS suggests they were at least considering this as an option.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#918 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

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

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:16 AM

Do those RDBS spots at 99 and 103 belong to the US? In other words, is the international operator attempting to get those licenses planning to use them in the US? If so, I don't see that as the end of the road for DirecTV. I don't see a new entrant doing well in the US market and would expect those licenses to become available in a future bankruptcy filing. 



#919 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,092 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:21 AM

Why would having RDBS licenses at 99 and 103 preclude a license at 101? I assumed since RDBS spectrum was very similar to Ka, it would have the same 2* separation requirement. Is that not the case?

 

If the 2* separation is the issue, given that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, is there any chance they could ask for and receive permission to operate RDBS from 101 so long as their hold/operate from 99 and 103 as well? Or does the FCC stick to their rules, even if the potential interference would be a company interfering with itself? The patent suggesting they might size the 101 feedhorn to receive RDBS suggests they were at least considering this as an option.

When I said RDBS at 99/103 "precluded" RDBS at 101 I was referring solely to licensing and the statements in the 10K.  If they hold RDBS licenses at only two slots, and they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, then they can't logically hold any licenses at 101.

 

The potential for earth-to-space (e2s) and space-to-earth (s2e) operations on the same frequency band causing interference is, of course, driven by the degree to which the "undesired" signal can not be descriminated from the "desired" signal at the receiving antenna.  In the case of a satellite that is a few degrees away the chances for interference is greatly reduced by the highly directional nature of the receiving antennas used at both ends.  However, to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference.  For that reason, I'm very skeptical of the possibility of RDBS from 101.  However, I see no reason that RDBS could not be used from 99 and 103, and Ka used from all three slots.


Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#920 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:23 AM

That would be my guess as well;

 

With D10 ailing and some of it's spotbeams problematic from the start, I'd look for D15 to have a Ka band payload as fully B-band like D10 and 11's are, and go to 103 as it's "normal" operating slot as the new 103cb replacing D10 which may be relegated as a backup in-orbit-spare.

 

And in addition provide a "full" CONUS wide RDBS capability from 103 as the actual "RB-2," (assuming Spectrum-5's challenges have all been fully quashed now.) as opposed to the current spot-beamed RB-2A payload aboard D12 used for advanced market testing purposes I think. 

 

However, since D15 is to be equipped with a reportedly 30 transponder Ku band payload as well. It could be used to swing over to 101 or some other Ku band slot and provide transponder capacity in an emergency.       

 

 

I thought the "amelioration" on D10 had been successful? Is that not the case?

 

It would seem rather wasteful to take D10 out of service completely if the problem is just with a few spotbeams. Maybe it will go to 101 and provide Ka lo service, after D15 takes its place? Even if it does have some problematic spot beams, they'd need another satellite at 101 to provide Ka hi anyway, so perhaps a "D16" would pick up any slack on D10's spotbeams.

 

This may make more sense even if D10 is fully functional. D15 would only be able to use its Ka transponders from 101, its Ku capability would be idle until they retired one of the other satellites there, and its RDBS capability would also go unused unless Directv is granted permission to broadcast RDBS from 101. D15 have both its Ka and RDBS capability used from 103, with Ku as a spare for the future if was ever rotated to 101 down the road, like I'm suggesting for D10.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#921 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:29 AM

When I said RDBS at 99/103 "precluded" RDBS at 101 I was referring solely to licensing and the statements in the 10K.  If they hold RDBS licenses at only two slots, and they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, then they can't logically hold any licenses at 101.

 

The potential for earth-to-space (e2s) and space-to-earth (s2e) operations on the same frequency band causing interference is, of course, driven by the degree to which the "undesired" signal can not be descriminated from the "desired" signal at the receiving antenna.  In the case of a satellite that is a few degrees away the chances for interference is greatly reduced by the highly directional nature of the receiving antennas used at both ends.  However, to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference.  For that reason, I'm very skeptical of the possibility of RDBS from 101.  However, I see no reason that RDBS could not be used from 99 and 103, and Ka used from all three slots.

 

 

When you say "to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference" do you mean on the same satellite, or at the same orbital? Presumably if D15 was designed to broadcast RDBS, it isn't designed to use RDBS for uplinks as well if that will be a problem?

 

I get the feeling I'm missing something here...obviously I'm not terribly familiar with how all this works, so my apologies if this is a dumb question :)


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#922 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,092 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:38 AM

...D15 have both its Ka and RDBS capability used from 103, with Ku as a spare for the future if was ever rotated to 101 down the road, like I'm suggesting for D10.

Keep in mind that the ITU and FCC are considering narrowing the Ku spacing requirement to 2 degrees. If Ku spectrum were to become available at 99 and 103, and DirecTV already had satellites in those positions, they would have a significant advantage in the application and allocation process.


Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#923 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,092 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:45 AM

When you say "to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference" do you mean on the same satellite, or at the same orbital? Presumably if D15 was designed to broadcast RDBS, it isn't designed to use RDBS for uplinks as well if that will be a problem?

 

I get the feeling I'm missing something here...obviously I'm not terribly familiar with how all this works, so my apologies if this is a dumb question :)

On the same physical satellite is nearly impossible to manage.  Within the degree or so that satellites assigned to the same slot are positioned it is extremely difficult to manage. 

 

We may have an answer should Spectrum Five ever launch a satellite to 119.25 degrees.  They have authority to use 17.3-17.7 GHz for space-to-earth, while Echostar is using 17.3-17.8 GHz for earth-to-space at 118.8 - less than a half degree away.


Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#924 OFFLINE   yosoyellobo

yosoyellobo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 2,221 posts
  • LocationJacksonville Fl
Joined: Nov 01, 2006

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:50 AM

I thought the "amelioration" on D10 had been successful? Is that not the case?
 .


Amelioration. First and last time I heard that word was here.

#925 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 4,006 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 12:00 PM

Keep in mind that the ITU and FCC are considering narrowing the Ku spacing requirement to 2 degrees. If Ku spectrum were to become available at 99 and 103, and DirecTV already had satellites in those positions, they would have a significant advantage in the application and allocation process.

 

 

That's very interesting, and that makes the idea of a Ku capable satellite sitting at 103 a very good one.

 

They'd need to extend that little selectively reflective surface on the LNB arm out to either side and angle it a bit to reflect back Ku from 103 and 99 in addition to 101, and add feedhorns for them on either side of the 101 Ku feedhorn. The LNB arm might start getting pretty crowded :) The possibility of adding Ka from 101, Ku from 99 & 103, not to mention RDBS from 99 and 103, certainly makes comments in the DSWM paper about supporting "many more satellites" ring much more true.

 

I think at this point I completely agree with everyone telling me that D15 will go to 103. It would make sense to then move D10 to 101.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21





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