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


  • Please log in to reply
2134 replies to this topic

#961 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 17 November 2013 - 01:51 PM

Was it determined to be possible to get both Ku and Ka from the same slot with one dish?

 

I don't understand why you'd even question this, as it is so damned obvious between the patent providing one way and simple common sense providing others.

 

Not only that, but why would Directv have applied for and be given a license to provide Ka from 101 when they already have a Ku license from 101, if both they and the FCC weren't 100% certain this could be done? Do you think they're stupid?

 

Haven't you already asked this question before and had it explained to you? Do you just have a short memory or are you trying to be a jerk?


  • Ed Campbell likes this

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


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#962 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:06 AM

I noticed something interesting. The application to operate D14 and the grant of authority show only Ka frequencies, not BSS frequencies from 17.3 to 17.7. I assume they'll have to ask separately for authorization to use the RDBS payload? Presumably at some future time when they're ready for it - i.e. when there is a LNB available that can receive RDBS from 99. This may mean that RDBS will not become operational until sometime well after D14 is launched, unless such an application would be a mere formality that is approved within a short period of time. How much lead time would they need for an application to add RDBS service to D14?

 

Am I interpreting this correctly?

 

Application: http://licensing.fcc...ment_key=952449

Grant: http://licensing.fcc...ment_key=977457


Edited by slice1900, 18 November 2013 - 03:07 AM.

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


#963 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,264 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:16 AM

The RDBS payload "RB-1" destined to be carried aboard D14 was filed separately under the satellite station authorization call letters "S2711" originally in '08 years earlier (and modified somewhat since then) as indicated by the links on page one of this thread.

 

The filing for the Ka band portion "S2869" and formally named as "DIRECTV 14" followed years later.

 

See my post #464 of this thread for note of DIRECTV's first confirmation that D14 and RB-1 will actually be part of the same physical satellite and their explanation why the request for the Ka band authorization for it came so much later.  


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#964 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,397 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:27 AM

I don't understand why you'd even question this, as it is so damned obvious between the patent providing one way and simple common sense providing others.

Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.

Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.

Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#965 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,951 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:00 AM

...Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license...

FCC rules require that a licensee broadcast on the frequencies, and from the location, specified in the license.  It does NOT require that anyone receive it.  All DirecTV needs to do is light up one transponder in the RDBS frequency to meet the "begin service" milestone.


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


#966 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,142 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:06 AM

Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.

Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.

Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.

 

They do have to have a plan on how to use them, though, to receive and keep the licenses. They can't just build up a bunch of smoke and mirrors and the FCC fall for it.



#967 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,264 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:28 PM

Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.

Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.

Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.

And what exactly makes this "spectrum squatting?"

 

DIRECTV applied for and was granted a modification to it's Ka band license at 101 back in '04 for back-hauling of local channels to and between their broadcast centers.

 

*See FCC File for DIRECTV 8, SAT-MOD-20040630-00128 (rel. Nov. 4, 2004).

 

The FCC granted this authorization to modify because because it helps facilitate the provision of LiL channels to subscribers, though indirectly.

 

I think a fairer question harsh would be to ask something to the effect of;

 

"What makes you feel DIRECTV has any real interest switching the use of their Ka band license at 101 from back-hauling purposes to supplying direct satellite feeds to subscribers?"

 

Or maybe;

 

"How do you know DIRECTV does not feel that with the successful deployments of D14 and 15, they will have more than sufficient Ka band capacity at 99 and 103 for direct subscriber feeds to make the addition of the Ka band at 101 for this unnecessary for the expense involved" or some other.

 

Not mere accusations of spectrum squatting since they have practical way to receive Ka from 101.        


Edited by HoTat2, 18 November 2013 - 07:49 PM.

DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#968 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:37 PM

I wasn't aware that Ka from 101 was being used for that purpose (or at all) I assumed they were going to use for broadcasting to customers, but maybe with the addition of Ka hi from 99 and RDBS from 99/103 they won't need it, unless 4K turns into a big deal.

 

Or who knows, maybe RDBS won't even be used for customer downlinks, and current LNBs will continue to be used for some time, unless/until they decide to add capacity for something today's LNB can't receive?

 

I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.


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


#969 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,264 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:05 PM

I wasn't aware that Ka from 101 was being used for that purpose (or at all) I assumed they were going to use for broadcasting to customers, but maybe with the addition of Ka hi from 99 and RDBS from 99/103 they won't need it, unless 4K turns into a big deal.

 

Or who knows, maybe RDBS won't even be used for customer downlinks, and current LNBs will continue to be used for some time, unless/until they decide to add capacity for something today's LNB can't receive?

 

I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.

Yeah, for some years now:

 

A Ka band payload for back-hauling aboard DIRECTV 8 ("S2132") comprised of four 250 MHz wide transponders shared among four spot-beamed uplink sites called "local channel aggregation points" at Seattle, WA., Castle Rock, CO,, Atlanta, GA. and New York, NY. (each site may use 1 or 2 transponders). These are translated over to one and/or two downlink spotbeams to the L.A. Broadcast Center and/or a broadcast center?, in Kansas City, MO. (Not really sure what facility is located there).

 

And a Ka band payload for back-haul on DIRECTV 9S ("S2689") of two 500 MHz wide transponders from two uplink spotbeams aimed at the LA Broadcast Center and a local channel aggregation point in Boise, ID. over to two downlink spotbeams to the Midwest Uplink Facility (MWUF) in Oakdale, Minn. and the Southwest Uplink Facility near Tucson, AZ. (SWUF)

 

See the attached FCC LOA applications for more technical details.

Attached Files


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#970 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,264 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:08 PM

 

 

... I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.

You have a link to that patent?

 

Or did you post it previously and I must have missed it?


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#971 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:05 PM

You have a link to that patent?

 

Or did you post it previously and I must have missed it?

 

 

http://www.google.co...s/US20130278304

 

Figure 3 is the interesting one. The patent (application - it hasn't been granted) itself describes a way to use frequency divisors to share a single LO, outputting each 500 MHz band separately to feed into a A/D converter. Sort of a "digital LNB", or more likely the front end to a DSWM LNB. The prior art in Figure 2 doesn't describe the KaKu LNB (since it stacks from 250 - 2150 MHz) though it may represent the front end of the SWM LNB since there is no point to stacking its inputs only to have it immediately unstack them.

 

Given that Directv's KaKu patent describes a way to share two LOs, you'd think that DROs were expensive or something when you see these patents trying to minimize their use, but they cost almost nothing. I guess there must be some other benefit to splitting the "signal" from a single DRO rather than having a bunch of them.

 

Best theory I can come up with there is that they may be a noise source, which is obviously a bad thing in a LNB, so you want to minimize their use? Maybe VOS knows?


Edited by slice1900, 18 November 2013 - 08:06 PM.

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


#972 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,397 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:56 AM

All DirecTV needs to do is light up one transponder in the RDBS frequency to meet the "begin service" milestone.

I'm pretty sure FCC rules demand that the licenses must be used "in the public interest". Showering us with microwaves for no particular reason is not allowed.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#973 ONLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,397 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:19 AM

Not mere accusations of spectrum squatting since they have practical way to receive Ka from 101.

My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.

My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.

My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#974 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,081 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:25 AM

My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.

My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.

My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.

Maybe....maybe not.

 

Then again...only a DirecTV customer would care anyway.

 

How's Dish these days in comparison on this topic? Never mind...don't really care.


  • studechip likes this
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#975 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,193 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:46 PM

Wow. So he thinks DIRECTV is squatting because they have three entire transponders that where not used for a while after they canceled a new sat for 110 due to some leagl wrangling over the ownership of additional 110 bandwidth.

#976 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,264 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:15 PM

My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.

 

As inkahauts points out;

 

Just because there was a temporary delay involved in re-purposing D5 at 110 over to service in the PR qualifies as squatting?  
 

... My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.

 

Perhaps;

 

But as stated it's probably irrelevant since DIRECTV may never have any intention of providing Ka service from 101 to subscribers and are satisfied with keeping it reserved for back-hauling duties as at present. 
 

... My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.

 

But use of the Ka spectrum at 101 for back-hauling does effectively increase the number of LiL channels that can be offered to subscribers, though indirectly as was pointed out in the FCC LOA filings for the Ka band payloads aboard D8 and 9S.   


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#977 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,237 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:41 PM

I'm pretty sure FCC rules demand that the licenses must be used "in the public interest". Showering us with microwaves for no particular reason is not allowed.


"Pretty sure?" Perhaps a review of the service milestones and thresholds required by the license DirecTV is operating under would clear up your misunderstanding. Consider that homework. :)

As for the "showering us with microwaves" ... may I suggest a tin foil hat?

Seriously - DirecTV has not violated their license. If you have anything more that wild accusations please post. Otherwise it would be nice to get back to reality and discuss DirecTV 14. Thanks!
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#978 OFFLINE   studechip

studechip

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,066 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:55 PM

Is there anything preventing 4k signals from being broadcast on the current fleet of satellites?

My understanding is that 4k is just another modulation scheme like mpeg2/4. Is that true?



#979 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,193 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:25 PM

Just bandwidth space being available.



#980 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:29 PM

MPEG2 & MPEG4 are compression schemes, not modulation schemes. 4K is a resolution, not a compression or modulation scheme.

 

They could broadcast 4K from any of their current satellites, and use either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression (though doing so with MPEG2 would be pretty stupid) Eventually they'll want to broadcast 4K using HEVC, which is a more advanced compression scheme than MPEG4. However, 4K might start out using MPEG4, just like HD started out using MPEG2.

 

They may already be broadcasting 4K, testing new receivers that aren't available yet. If the channel doesn't show up in the guide except on those test receivers, no one else would know it is there...

 

Who knows, maybe that's what 110 is doing right now :)


Edited by slice1900, 19 November 2013 - 11:30 PM.

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





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