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 (D14 up next)


  • Please log in to reply
1454 replies to this topic

#181 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,728 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 23 August 2011 - 06:50 PM

I wonder how long before those dishes show up?

That's really cool...

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

#182 OFFLINE   spear61

spear61

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 356 posts
Joined: Sep 19, 2004

Posted 02 September 2011 - 11:49 AM

There were a bunch of KA band filings for 97W from three companies on the day the server crashed - Directv, Hughes, and Inmarsat Hawaii.

]


International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.

#183 OFFLINE   Sixto

Sixto

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,963 posts
Joined: Nov 17, 2005

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:02 PM

International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.

Yep, today's release:

http://hraunfoss.fcc...A-11-1498A1.pdf

The Letter of Intent filed on August 9, 2011 by Hughes Network Systems LLC is dismissed as premature.

The Letter of Intent filed on August 9, 2011 by Inmarsat Hawaii Inc. is dismissed as premature

What I'm not yet sure of, is if this is the same as the request for 97 or use of 97. Checking ...
DirecTV: Genie, H25, CCK, GenioGo, SWiM-16 & SWiM-8, DECA to Gigabit Switch with FiOS (75/35)
FiOS: Roamio Pro's (2), Roamio Plus, Mini's (4) with Ultimate HD (My Roamio Thoughts)

#184 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 September 2011 - 12:21 PM

Sixto, here are some numbers for thoughts.

In current allocation of bandwidth of Ka-Hi at 103W orbital spot (sharing between SW-1 and D12), we're does not see two tpns: 7 and 8.
SW1 use tp1..6 for spot-beams, D12 - tp9...24 for CONUS.

And another tidbit: Ka-Hi at 99W tp7/8 and tp9...24 are not covered by any sat.
I see a window of opportunity to utilize the Ka-Hi empty range by future sat (perhaps D14@99W could do that ?).

#185 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 04 September 2011 - 01:54 PM

Sixto, here are some numbers for thoughts.

In current allocation of bandwidth of Ka-Hi at 103W orbital spot (sharing between SW-1 and D12), we're does not see two tpns: 7 and 8.
SW1 use tp1..6 for spot-beams, D12 - tp9...24 for CONUS.

And another tidbit: Ka-Hi at 99W tp7/8 and tp9...24 are not covered by any sat.
I see a window of opportunity to utilize the Ka-Hi empty range by future sat (perhaps D14@99W could do that ?).


Yes a possible "99ca?"

That's what I suggested early on in this thread here;

http://www.dbstalk.c...104#post2695104

And lately here;

http://www.dbstalk.c...566#post2836566

But the problem is no FCC filings for a Ka-hi band station at 99W has been found. The only located filings pertaining to the future satellite for 99W under construction by SS/L only mentions the 24/17 GHz Reverse-DBS license RB-1.

#186 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 September 2011 - 05:27 PM

I'm reading FCC docs by posted links here ... Don't see either Ka-Hi freqs at 99W in those.

Still wondering about no load on existing tp7 and 8. Used for special purpose ?

#187 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 05 September 2011 - 06:29 AM

I'm reading FCC docs by posted links here ... Don't see either Ka-Hi freqs at 99W in those.

Still wondering about no load on existing tp7 and 8. Used for special purpose ?


For that matter I'm not really sure how the Spaceways have room for their transponders 1-6 much less 7 and 8, at least on SW1 currently.

For instance according to the technical schedule S document for D12's Ka-hi CONUS beam tps., they need a total bandwidth of 8 x 40 MHz = 320 MHz with the lowest tp. center frequency of 19890 MHz.

Therefore extending 20 MHz below that for a lower edge of 19870 MHz, that only leaves 170 MHz of bandwidth for SW1's six transponders. Now if the Spaceways allegedly have a tp. bandwidth of 62.5 MHz each, where is there room for them? :confused:

Could the receiver signal strength screens actually be showing virtual transponders 1-6 for the Spaceways (or maybe just for SW1 at the moment) but in reality they are using a half-transponder arrangement by transmitting two RF carriers on each of the first three 62.5 MHz physical transponders?

#188 OFFLINE   doctor j

doctor j

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,418 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, Al.
Joined: Jun 14, 2006

Posted 05 September 2011 - 06:56 AM

For that matter I'm not really sure how the Spaceways have room for their transponders 1-6 much less 7 and 8, at least on SW1 currently.

For instance according to the technical schedule S document for D12's Ka-hi CONUS beam tps., they need a total bandwidth of 8 x 40 MHz = 320 MHz with the lowest tp. center frequency of 19890 MHz.

Therefore extending 20 MHz below that for a lower edge of 19870 MHz, that only leaves 170 MHz of bandwidth for SW1's six transponders. Now if the Spaceways allegedly have a tp. bandwidth of 62.5 MHz each, where is there room for them? :confused:

Could the receiver signal strength screens actually be showing virtual transponders 1-6 for the Spaceways (or maybe just for SW1 at the moment) but in reality they are using a half-transponder arrangement by transmitting two RF carriers on each of the first three 62.5 MHz physical transponders?


Remember it's R and L polarization so they are using 3 Transponder pairs.

That still gets ovelap as you noted: 187.5 MHz goes to 1975.5 MHz.
Either the 5/6 pair is a Half Transponder or the D12 lower Transponder is "Not available".
The spaceways are going to be a big part of the 12 additional HD LIL markets reportly active in 2011.

http://www.dbstalk.c...ad.php?t=172899

Sixto's D-12 map shows TPN 9 and 10 the lower R/L pair as open.

I've postulated the non use of 9/10 D-12 was because of SW-1.
this just means the "available bandwidth" for National HD channels continues to be very Tight.

Doctor j

MFH-2 System : 2 Major Viewing Areas. 2 x HR20-700's & H21 in each area via E2/SWM-8. Hardwire gigabit switch to 30 mb/sec internet.


#189 OFFLINE   doctor j

doctor j

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,418 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, Al.
Joined: Jun 14, 2006

Posted 05 September 2011 - 11:01 AM

International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.


Unfortunately I don't think that's what it means at all.
From the queue report you referenced:

http://licensing.fcc...portExternal.do

The filing period began at 2:00:00:000 PM on 8/9/2011, for the vacanted KA 97W slot.
Within 40 seconds HughesNetwork Systems LLC (4) ; INMARSAT Hawaii Inc. (4) ; and DIRECTV Enterprises LLC (3) had filed 11 requests for the 97W slot on a "First Come, First Served" basis.

The Hughes s2832 and INMARSAT s2833 were microseconds before the exact 2:00:00:000 acceptable time and therefore dismissed as premature.

HOWEVER the Hughes s2834 and s2837 as well as the INMARSAT s2836 filings are BEFORE the DIRECTV s2838 filing at 2:00:02:796
and are still valid.

I don't think this is going away that easy

"Missed it by THAT much" (2:796 seconds)

Doctor j

MFH-2 System : 2 Major Viewing Areas. 2 x HR20-700's & H21 in each area via E2/SWM-8. Hardwire gigabit switch to 30 mb/sec internet.


#190 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 05 September 2011 - 01:46 PM

Remember it's R and L polarization so they are using 3 Transponder pairs.

That still gets ovelap as you noted: 187.5 MHz goes to 1975.5 MHz.
Either the 5/6 pair is a Half Transponder or the D12 lower Transponder is "Not available".
The spaceways are going to be a big part of the 12 additional HD LIL markets reportly active in 2011.

http://www.dbstalk.c...ad.php?t=172899

Sixto's D-12 map shows TPN 9 and 10 the lower R/L pair as open.

I've postulated the non use of 9/10 D-12 was because of SW-1.
this just means the "available bandwidth" for National HD channels continues to be very Tight.

Doctor j


Aha ! Interference between sat's tpns ...

As to D12 tp9/10 - those are alive and kicking :).

#191 OFFLINE   spear61

spear61

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 356 posts
Joined: Sep 19, 2004

Posted 05 September 2011 - 04:17 PM

Unfortunately I don't think that's what it means at all.

I don't think this is going away that easy

"Missed it by THAT much" (2:796 seconds)

Doctor j


I did the Abbott and Costello thing (who's on first?) and started thru the multiple filing times and then gave up knowing you would figure it out.

I did wonder about filing geographical location and server response time and how something as benign as miliseconds of server response could affect the filings.

Sure seems like an archaic way to make such a big decision. I read they used to pay people to sleep in the FCC corridors so as to get in the door for the first paper stamp.

#192 OFFLINE   LameLefty

LameLefty

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,043 posts
Joined: Sep 28, 2006

Posted 05 September 2011 - 05:12 PM

I did the Abbott and Costello thing (who's on first?) and started thru the multiple filing times and then gave up knowing you would figure it out.

I did wonder about filing geographical location and server response time and how something as benign as miliseconds of server response could affect the filings.

Sure seems like an archaic way to make such a big decision. I read they used to pay people to sleep in the FCC corridors so as to get in the door for the first paper stamp.


I've literally had a runner at a court clerk waiting for a phone call or a page (back in the day) so they could file a document ASAP. We were already pushing the edges with the tech of the '90s, but now with so many courts and bureaucratic agencies going to electronic filing systems, I suspect eventually some kind of "common sense" rewriting of the rules will prevail. For instance, "first to file" priority meant a lot more when Company A files one day, and Company B doesn't bother to file for another few days or weeks - that evidences that Company B was either unable or unwilling to spend the effort to file earlier, and hence de facto less worthy of consideration. A more common sense approach would be to say that applications filed by close of business on the first day would have priority, and then either go by lottery or some kind of technical weighting system from among those applicants.

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


#193 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 05 September 2011 - 06:30 PM

Aha ! Interference between sat's tpns ...

As to D12 tp9/10 - those are alive and kicking :).


Unless you mean health wise or some other, how exactly can you say transponder pair 9/10 are "alive and kicking" if indeed doctor j is correct and they are unusable for relaying national programming since they may interfere with SW1?

#194 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 05 September 2011 - 09:32 PM

Unless you mean health wise or some other, how exactly can you say transponder pair 9/10 are "alive and kicking" if indeed doctor j is correct and they are unusable for relaying national programming since they may interfere with SW1?



  • D12 Schedule S listed tp09/10, freq 19.890 GHz.
  • Spectrum analyzer show the D12 9/10 tpns clear and loud here (SFO).
  • The tpns does listed in System Tables:
    Net#15 - 102.8W
    09: R 30000 S2-QPSK:2/3 IF:1840000 KHz (19890 GHz) [~40 Mbps]
    10: L 30000 S2-QPSK:2/3 IF:1840000 KHz (19890 GHz) [~40 Mbps]
  • Turn your DVR signal level screen for 103(ca) and tell me the values for tp9/10. That means at least null packets streaming, not just carrier presenting.
  • Perhaps one day I could show you constellation diagram, not sure if it will convince you.
  • Interference happening between D12 tp7/8 [19.850 GHz] and SW-1 [19.866 GHz].

P.S. Reading Schedule S, I see D12 has frequencies for support SB (tp 15..24) at 103W [net#14], same time D10 has same set of tpns. Since there is no separate network, those two sats can works for different SB without showing it names/ID in system tables. Perhaps D12 as new sat could do 8PSK modulation, then we can find his SB tpns. Today 16 tpns in Net#14 employ 8PSK.

Edited by P Smith, 05 September 2011 - 11:32 PM.


#195 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:38 AM

... Interference happening between D12 tp7/8 [19.850 GHz] and SW-1 [19.866 GHz]. ....


D12 transponder pair "7/8?" :confused:

Aren't pair 9/10 the lowest on A-band?

#196 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:24 PM

D12 transponder pair "7/8?" :confused:

Aren't pair 9/10 the lowest on A-band?


OK. Let me correct myself. (Isn't close to that what happened with NAND ?).

It would be happen if D12 would fire up tp7/8.

The phrase outline to that fact what discussed above - D12 tp 9/10 are "disabled" because of SW1's tp 5/6 close range - those are not.

[Picking words and not taking time for reading last pages of the thread?]

P.S. You didn't post your DVR signal level reading for D12 tp9/10 !

#197 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 07 September 2011 - 04:00 PM

OK. Let me correct myself. (Isn't close to that what happened with NAND ?).

It would be happen if D12 would fire up tp7/8.

The phrase outline to that fact what discussed above - D12 tp 9/10 are "disabled" because of SW1's tp 5/6 close range - those are not.

[Picking words and not taking time for reading last pages of the thread?]

P.S. You didn't post your DVR signal level reading for D12 tp9/10 !


OK, I think I understand what you're saying. Hypothetically speaking, if there were an actual transponder pair of 7/8 centered at 19850 MHz calculated by going 40 MHz below pair 9/10 at 19890 MHz, it would conflict with SW1's transponder pair 5/6 center at 19866 MHz. Not pair 9/10.

But what of the some 7 MHz overlap between the lower transponder bandwidth edge of D12's 9/10 pair and upper edge of SW1's 5/6 pair? Is it maybe inconsequential because the extreme upper and lower parts of SW1's 62.5 MHz tp. bandwidth are unused?

Oh ..., and my readings on tps. 9 and 10 on 103ca are around 75-77 right now. Temperature outside is close to 100 degrees in South L.A.
at the moment.
But I really don't have great Ka band numbers, never did in spite of all manner of attempts at peaking the dish here (SL-5).

#198 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 07 September 2011 - 04:55 PM

That's why I spent time for making post #194, answering to your above it.

#199 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,907 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 07 September 2011 - 06:21 PM

That's why I spent time for making post #194, answering to your above it.


Alright;

Be nice to know what exactly DIRECTV is doing, or intending to do with tps. pair 9/10 though. They may be "alive and kicking" as you say, and certainly not with just unmodulated carriers either, but digitally modulated with standard 30 mega-baud data streams as though they were both transmitting HD programming. Yet Sixto's map still show them both as "open."

What are they sending null packets or something?

#200 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 07 September 2011 - 07:37 PM

See post#194 ...




spam firewall