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

DSWM13 Switch


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
373 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,768 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:18 PM

Mentioned the SWM13 to a local D* installer, and he said...

 

But he added, he had heard nothing from management, and was just guessing.

I think this might be an "uneducated" guess. :lol:


A.K.A VOS

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

#42 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,129 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:53 PM

Yeah, it seems if this is meant for hotels and whatnot, the 5 "bonus" tuners for the Genie wouldn't really make sense. In the end, how much more sense does this make than just using SWM-8 and SWM-16 modules? If you include the cost to develop this technology, along with the fact that there are DSPs and other more advanced technologies in this than a normal SWM, what do you get? I suppose you could modestly reduce the number of modules if you were loading racks with SWM-8s in a hotel or dorm or hospital type situation.

 

But, in an MDU it seems like this would be a bad choice. Generally one would think in a condo or apartment you're generally going to see fewer tuners per unit than single family homes, and with it being 13 tuners you now have an uneven balance if you were to split the single DSWM between two units. Plus, you have the need to isolate the MoCA networks between two units. 

 

I'm just confused why it was worth their time and money to build this when SWM8 and SWM16s are only in the range of $100, and that is the consumer cost at Solid Signal--DirecTV's cost has to be less than that. 



#43 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 01:46 PM

When speculating there will be paths that don't turn out [dead ends].

I think you're over reaching with "digitizing the entire RF bandwidth being transmitted by DirecTV".

We're dealing with a single wire [coax] and must stay in the frequency domain for more than one "signal".

 

I'm quite certain it does exactly that. I'm not sure I understand your comment about how we're dealing with single wire coax. The output of the DSWM is single wire, but the input is the same legacy input that current SWM has. It is the input it is digitizing, outputting 13 SWM channels spaced more closely than current SWM to use the same or very similar frequency range. The drawings on the patents and the description itself is very clear that it does the following:

 

We can assume the legacy portion of an LNB is unchanged, or at least any changes are not referenced in these patents. The only change mentioned in the patents is the possible addition of feedback from the DSWM to tweak the DRO (dielectric resonant oscillator, or what we call a LO) frequency to correct for LO frequency drift.

 

The input to the DSWM is 8 "LNBs". Figure 3b in the patent shows what these contain: 99 odd, 99 even, 101 odd, 101 even, 103 odd, 103 even, 119 odd, 110/119 even. That doesn't mean it would actually expect 8 cables, figure 3b represents a DSWM LNB, getting 8 traces from the legacy side to the DSWM side. When an external DSWM is connected to a legacy LNB it would still take four cables but do this splitting out internally. These 8 pathways are frequency shifted using DROs so the bottom is at near baseband (starting between 10 and 100 MHz) This is shown in the center of figure 3b in the patent - the circles with X's marked 328 are the DROs.

 

From there, the Ka pathways are split so hi and lo can be handled separately, increasing the count to 12 pathways, as shown on the left side of figure 4. All 12 pathways are passed through anti aliasing filters, high pass AA filters for Ka hi, low pass for the rest. Next ADCs perform 9 bit sampling frequencies up to 1.35 GHz, converting the full 500 MHz spectrum of all 12 pathways to digital data. It isn't specified in the drawings/patent, but it is assumed someone skilled in the art will know all 12 ADCs are part of a single DSP.

 

These outputs are inputs to the channelizers shown in figure 5, which as the first and most simple embodiment of the patent most likely represents the DSWM13. This stage creates the SWM channels by picking and choosing transponders from the 12 digitized 500 MHz bands. Thus the value of 'L' on the right side of figure 5 would be equal to 14 for the DSWM13 (13 SWM channels plus the guide channel)

 

For space reasons, on the left hand side of figure 5 only 2 of the 12 outputs from figure 4 are shown as inputs, but all 12 are actually used. There are 'k' pathways to the "select and reorder" stage for each of the 12 inputs, each pathway representing one transponder. Thus the number for 'k' will be different for the different paths, since not every 500 MHz band has the full complement of transponders active. The patent states that normally, k=16 for Ku and k=12 for Ka lo, which makes sense as the number of possible/typical odd or even transponders on Ku and Ka lo, respectively. It states that normally k=3 for Ka hi, which makes no sense, but I ascribe that to there being few Ka hi transponders being active when the patent was written. Clearly k=12 for Ka hi now for 103, and eventually for 99 when it D14 is in service.

 

The rest of the channelizer design is not documented, but given that it takes digital input from every 500 MHz band, and thus can select one or more individual transponders from any 500 MHz, then outputs stacked SWM channels on the other end I guess it is supposed to be pretty self explanatory for anyone who has understood everything up until this point ;) The "select and reorder" stage picks the required transponders containing the desired Directv channel(s), then frequency shifts them to be stacked in the SWM output. It isn't shown exactly where the conversion back to analog occurs, but probably after the circled plus so only one DAC is required to convert the whole SWM output.

 

I realize that to people not used to a DSP the idea of taking 12 500 MHz bands, each containing up to 12 or 16 transponders, and performing operations on 100+ transponders simultaneously is hard to wrap your head around, but that's exactly what this is doing. Just wait until the third embodiment, when it is doing these operations on all 1000+ Directv channels simultaneously!


  • HoTat2 likes this

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


#44 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,768 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 03 November 2013 - 01:50 PM

I'm just confused why it was worth their time and money to build this when SWM8 and SWM16s are only in the range of $100, and that is the consumer cost at Solid Signal--DirecTV's cost has to be less than that. 

The SWM8 was first used for MDUs.

The design moved to LNBs as cost savings over an LNB + WB68

 

While I have no inside info.... this new DSWM might follow the same path by becoming an LNB and be cheaper than a LNB + SWM-16


A.K.A VOS

#45 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:03 PM

Yeah, it seems if this is meant for hotels and whatnot, the 5 "bonus" tuners for the Genie wouldn't really make sense. In the end, how much more sense does this make than just using SWM-8 and SWM-16 modules? If you include the cost to develop this technology, along with the fact that there are DSPs and other more advanced technologies in this than a normal SWM, what do you get? I suppose you could modestly reduce the number of modules if you were loading racks with SWM-8s in a hotel or dorm or hospital type situation.

 

But, in an MDU it seems like this would be a bad choice. Generally one would think in a condo or apartment you're generally going to see fewer tuners per unit than single family homes, and with it being 13 tuners you now have an uneven balance if you were to split the single DSWM between two units. Plus, you have the need to isolate the MoCA networks between two units. 

 

I'm just confused why it was worth their time and money to build this when SWM8 and SWM16s are only in the range of $100, and that is the consumer cost at Solid Signal--DirecTV's cost has to be less than that. 

 

 

There was a paper on the ASIC used in the DSWM presented at ISSCC (a conference for people presenting about state of the art circuit design...Intel will present about their new CPUs there, for instance)

 

The paper stated there were two problems with the current SWM. One, that it didn't provide enough flexibility to increase the number of inputs (reference to the RDBS bands of D14 and D15, perhaps, or maybe some plans beyond that Directv hasn't shared yet)  Two, that the SAW filters required in the design "significantly increase cost". In the patents figure 2 represents the current SWM, and 9 SAW filters are shown, one per channel. They are piezoelectric devices, not something you can shrink onto a circuit board, and I guess they must be pretty costly by comparison to integrated circuits.

 

I agree that 13 channels isn't really a big deal over 8 for MDUs, but it is still an improvement. The second generation should have 26, and the third even more, along with improvements that would provide IP output and drop the requirement for coax from DSWM to TV entirely if desired. The DSWM will be an evolution over time with regular improvements coming if they follow the path the patent lays out. So even if the DSWM13 isn't a huge improvement over the SWM8, it is just a step towards further improvements. The current SWM would always need one SAW filter per channel, limiting the cost improvement per channel that would be possible.

 

Certainly there would be no reason why anyone would want to rip out working SWM8s to replace with DSWM13s, but maybe when capacity is added DSWM13s would be added instead.

 

The cost/benefit of the DSWM13 might be hard to see at first - I'd guess they'll cost a lot more than a SWM8. That's probably why Directv is limiting it to certain markets for now, but perhaps they'll expand the market for it once they have the production cost driven down, or maybe they'll wait for the version with more channels (up to 26 would be possible in the second generation) before it sees wide deployment.


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


#46 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:04 PM

The SWM8 was first used for MDUs.

The design moved to LNBs as cost savings over an LNB + WB68

 

While I have no inside info.... this new DSWM might follow the same path by becoming an LNB and be cheaper than a LNB + SWM-16

 

 

If the SAW filters are as expensive as the paper seems to imply, it might eventually become the standard LNB deployed in new installs, similar to the SWM LNB today.

 

I don't suppose anyone would know what SAW filters cost when purchased in quantities of a million? :)


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


#47 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,129 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:08 PM

Down the line when it gets to the point that it's purely IP based, even from the LNB (or switch in the case of an MDU), what kind of bandwidth requirements and wiring requirements do you foresee? I'm guessing to guarantee QoS, the number of tuners supported would be determined by (speed of link)/(maximum theoretical channel bitrate)? Is there any idea at this point what that would be? IE: how many tuners would they be willing to install on a dedicated (no other traffic) 100Mb wired network?



#48 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,768 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:23 PM

I'm quite certain it does exactly that.

 

I realize that to people not used to a DSP the idea of taking 12 500 MHz bands, each containing up to 12 or 16 transponders, and performing operations on 100+ transponders simultaneously is hard to wrap your head around, but that's exactly what this is doing. Just wait until the third embodiment, when it is doing these operations on all 1000+ Directv channels simultaneously!

I've read, thought, reread thought "a bunch more", over and over what you posted.

 

I think you've just described the digital filtering.

 

"In simple terms":

Analog in, frequency shift, ADC, digital filtering, DAC, frequency shift, analog out.


A.K.A VOS

#49 ONLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,053 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

I'm quite certain it does exactly that. I'm not sure I understand your comment about how we're dealing with single wire coax. The output of the DSWM is single wire, but the input is the same legacy input that current SWM has. It is the input it is digitizing, outputting 13 SWM channels spaced more closely than current SWM to use the same or very similar frequency range. The drawings on the patents and the description itself is very clear that it does the following:

 

We can assume the legacy portion of an LNB is unchanged, or at least any changes are not referenced in these patents. The only change mentioned in the patents is the possible addition of feedback from the DSWM to tweak the DRO (dielectric resonant oscillator, or what we call a LO) frequency to correct for LO frequency drift.

 

The input to the DSWM is 8 "LNBs". Figure 3b in the patent shows what these contain: 99 odd, 99 even, 101 odd, 101 even, 103 odd, 103 even, 119 odd, 110/119 even. That doesn't mean it would actually expect 8 cables, figure 3b represents a DSWM LNB, getting 8 traces from the legacy side to the DSWM side. When an external DSWM is connected to a legacy LNB it would still take four cables but do this splitting out internally. These 8 pathways are frequency shifted using DROs so the bottom is at near baseband (starting between 10 and 100 MHz) This is shown in the center of figure 3b in the patent - the circles with X's marked 328 are the DROs.

 

From there, the Ka pathways are split so hi and lo can be handled separately, increasing the count to 12 pathways, as shown on the left side of figure 4. All 12 pathways are passed through anti aliasing filters, high pass AA filters for Ka hi, low pass for the rest. Next ADCs perform 9 bit sampling frequencies up to 1.35 GHz, converting the full 500 MHz spectrum of all 12 pathways to digital data. It isn't specified in the drawings/patent, but it is assumed someone skilled in the art will know all 12 ADCs are part of a single DSP.

 

These outputs are inputs to the channelizers shown in figure 5, which as the first and most simple embodiment of the patent most likely represents the DSWM13. This stage creates the SWM channels by picking and choosing transponders from the 12 digitized 500 MHz bands. Thus the value of 'L' on the right side of figure 5 would be equal to 14 for the DSWM13 (13 SWM channels plus the guide channel)

 

For space reasons, on the left hand side of figure 5 only 2 of the 12 outputs from figure 4 are shown as inputs, but all 12 are actually used. There are 'k' pathways to the "select and reorder" stage for each of the 12 inputs, each pathway representing one transponder. Thus the number for 'k' will be different for the different paths, since not every 500 MHz band has the full complement of transponders active. The patent states that normally, k=16 for Ku and k=12 for Ka lo, which makes sense as the number of possible/typical odd or even transponders on Ku and Ka lo, respectively. It states that normally k=3 for Ka hi, which makes no sense, but I ascribe that to there being few Ka hi transponders being active when the patent was written. Clearly k=12 for Ka hi now for 103, and eventually for 99 when it D14 is in service.

 

The rest of the channelizer design is not documented, but given that it takes digital input from every 500 MHz band, and thus can select one or more individual transponders from any 500 MHz, then outputs stacked SWM channels on the other end I guess it is supposed to be pretty self explanatory for anyone who has understood everything up until this point ;) The "select and reorder" stage picks the required transponders containing the desired Directv channel(s), then frequency shifts them to be stacked in the SWM output. It isn't shown exactly where the conversion back to analog occurs, but probably after the circled plus so only one DAC is required to convert the whole SWM output.

 

I realize that to people not used to a DSP the idea of taking 12 500 MHz bands, each containing up to 12 or 16 transponders, and performing operations on 100+ transponders simultaneously is hard to wrap your head around, but that's exactly what this is doing. Just wait until the third embodiment, when it is doing these operations on all 1000+ Directv channels simultaneously!

Wow ...

 

Thanks a much for this well written explanation. You've really helped my aging brain to understand this a lot better. Wish the patent description had been clearer on this for the main DSWiM parts as it was in quickly explaining the current ASWiM design which I grasped easily.

 

And yes I think the "k = 3" figure for the Ka-hi band is listed because D12 and of course D14 didn't exist when the patent was written and only SW1 & 2 operated in the Ka-hi band then with never greater of six (spotbeam) transponders in use.

 

3 LHCP and 3 RHCP , thus a "k" figure of only 3.


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#50 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,768 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:35 PM

I agree that 13 channels isn't really a big deal over 8 for MDUs, but it is still an improvement. The second generation should have 26, and the third even more, along with improvements that would provide IP output and drop the requirement for coax from DSWM to TV entirely if desired.

The second generation would take a new receiver design, than what we have now.


A.K.A VOS

#51 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:56 PM

Down the line when it gets to the point that it's purely IP based, even from the LNB (or switch in the case of an MDU), what kind of bandwidth requirements and wiring requirements do you foresee? I'm guessing to guarantee QoS, the number of tuners supported would be determined by (speed of link)/(maximum theoretical channel bitrate)? Is there any idea at this point what that would be? IE: how many tuners would they be willing to install on a dedicated (no other traffic) 100Mb wired network?

 

Well, that all depends on the usable bit rate of a transponder. That in turn depends on what modulation scheme it uses and the amount of error correction ratio. Both of those could be adjusted over time, but let's make a WAG of somewhere between 1 and 2 Mbits per MHz. Maybe someone knows the real answer here?

 

If you have 12 500 MHz bands (they aren't all full, and not all transponders are fully utilized, but let's say they are) then that's 6000 MHz, or between 6 and 12 Gbps for everything, though of course even in the largest MDU not even close to all channels would ever be watched at the same time (unless the residents got together and tried a "flush all toilets at the same time" type of experiment on Directv ;)) Thus the output of all watched channels could easily be carried on a single cat6a cable running 10Gb ethernet.

 

Whether that 10Gb ethernet connection is available on a DSWM LNB or only on a DSWM switch, the MDU should need only the one. The DSWM would send the content via multicast so it would only require one copy of each watched channel, whether only one person is watching it or 100. Between that, and QoS, it is not a difficult problem network wise. These are both fairly mature technologies. The network cabling is no different than what a large MDU that provides ethernet to everyone would already have, or at least would certainly have by the time this was available.

 

In a home, you'd really need to have gigabit ethernet (which runs fine over ordinary cat5) as 100Mb would probably not hold enough channels for much more than a Genie's worth of tuners. Gigabit ethernet is super cheap now, and it will be impossible to find anything slower by the time you could get an IP DSWM LNB for the home. You'd be able to use wireless if you want, as that is already capable of speeds far in excess of 100 Mb, and even faster will be available in the future.


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


#52 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:01 PM

The second generation would take a new receiver design, than what we have now.

 

Why? When discussing the second embodiment, the patent indicated that SWM has a maximum of 26 channels. If you do the math the current bandwidth used by the 8+1 channels would allow exactly 34 MHz each for 26+1 channels, not sure if that's where it came from but at any rate I wouldn't assume new receivers would be required.

 

Additionally, just because 26 channels is claimed as the limit doesn't mean they'd actually provide 26 channels if 26 was not compatible with current receivers but some smaller number still much larger than 13 was.


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


#53 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:05 PM

Wow ...

 

Thanks a much for this well written explanation. You've really helped my aging brain to understand this a lot better. Wish the patent description had been clearer on this for the main DSWiM parts as it was in quickly explaining the current ASWiM design which I grasped easily.

 

And yes I think the "k = 3" figure for the Ka-hi band is listed because D12 and of course D14 didn't exist when the patent was written and only SW1 & 2 operated in the Ka-hi band then with never greater of six (spotbeam) transponders in use.

 

3 LHCP and 3 RHCP , thus a "k" figure of only 3.

 

 

Cool, thanks! I figured the k=3 thing was something like that, I was racking my brain at first trying to understand that until I remembered that Ka hi was added after Ka lo :)

 

In a real implementation I don't see why they would ever limit the k values, the only penalty for operating on non-existent transponders is a tiny bit of additional power/heat load as more area of the DSP is active. There seems to be little point in doing so and then later having to deliver a firmware update to them with new programming to increase the k value for bands that had transponders added to them.


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


#54 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,768 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:16 PM

Why? When discussing the second embodiment, the patent indicated that SWM has a maximum of 26 channels. If you do the math the current bandwidth used by the 8+1 channels would allow exactly 34 MHz each for 26+1 channels, not sure if that's where it came from but at any rate I wouldn't assume new receivers would be required.

 

Additionally, just because 26 channels is claimed as the limit doesn't mean they'd actually provide 26 channels if 26 was not compatible with current receivers but some smaller number still much larger than 13 was.

"I think" you're looking at what it "could do", but not how it will fit into the current line of TPs, since some are 50-60 MHz.

"If they were all 32 MHz", then...


A.K.A VOS

#55 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:36 PM

I've read, thought, reread thought "a bunch more", over and over what you posted.

 

I think you've just described the digital filtering.

 

"In simple terms":

Analog in, frequency shift, ADC, digital filtering, DAC, frequency shift, analog out.

 

 

But that's all a SWM is, and the DSWM is just a digital version of a SWM, made to be cheaper by avoiding SAW filters and improved along the way to output 13 channels instead of 8. I know I confused things with my first few posts, just ignore those and only read the ones from yesterday evening on, after I'd actually read through the entire patent instead of skipping to the end for the good stuff - that IS where the good stuff was, but there are multiple embodiments and the DSWM13 will be only the first.

 

The first embodiment is a building block towards the path to a fully digital solution, but like you say it just does what the SWM8 does, only the transponder selection occurs in the digital domain instead of analog. The second embodiment builds on it by adding higher order functions (Hilbert transforms, Polyphase filters and Fourier transforms) for some of the processing. I believe that the output from that would be I/Q data for full transponders, which would allow placing SWM channels right up against each other with little or no guard band, thereby increasing the channel count to at or near the claimed 26 channel maximum. The third embodiment builds on that to allow operating "on fine pieces of spectrum" (which I take to mean individual Directv channels) The third embodiment shows several options, which ranges from SWM output (detailed in the patent as being two outputs, as on a SWM16) to IP output of I/Q data, to IP output of demodulated I/Q data (i.e., MPEG2/MPEG4)

 

The lack of clarity about exactly what the third embodiment will output may result from not quite being sure what product they wanted to arrive at when the patent was written. The first and second seem pretty clear, so I expect they were both well under development at the time this patent was written.


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


#56 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:38 PM

"I think" you're looking at what it "could do", but not how it will fit into the current line of TPs, since some are 50-60 MHz.

"If they were all 32 MHz", then...

 

I wasn't aware Directv had any different sized transponders for customer programming. I know they use some 250 MHz wide transponders for internal use.

 

I thought they were all 24 MHz or so wide for Ku and 36 MHz or so for Ka, with some guard bands around them. Which transponders are you referring to that are 50 to 60 MHz wide?


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


#57 ONLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,053 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:22 PM

I wasn't aware Directv had any different sized transponders for customer programming. I know they use some 250 MHz wide transponders for internal use.

 

I thought they were all 24 MHz or so wide for Ku and 36 MHz or so for Ka, with some guard bands around them. Which transponders are you referring to that are 50 to 60 MHz wide?

From what I understand;

 

The Spaceway transponders in their "bent pipe" or "non-processor" mode are technically 62.5 MHz wide, but only the 36 MHz wide central portion of it is used (very inefficient). .

 

D10, 11, and 12 tps. (and soon the upcoming D14) are 36 MHz wide.

 

Ku band tps. are 24 MHz wide.

 

And the tps.for the World Direct international service from G3C at 95W are 27 MHz wide. 


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#58 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,739 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:11 PM

So is this new SWiM13 a new LNB that'll go on the dish and only have one cable coming out of it, like the current SWiM 8's? Or will it be more along the lines of the current SWiM 16's?

#59 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,862 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 04 November 2013 - 12:07 AM

"I think" you're looking at what it "could do", but not how it will fit into the current line of TPs, since some are 50-60 MHz.

"If they were all 32 MHz", then...

VOS, we did try to find such, but ... got only 36 MHz max, do you remember ? :)


Edited by P Smith, 04 November 2013 - 12:07 AM.


#60 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,410 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:11 AM

So is this new SWiM13 a new LNB that'll go on the dish and only have one cable coming out of it, like the current SWiM 8's? Or will it be more along the lines of the current SWiM 16's?

 

 

We can assume the DSWM13 Directv has announced isn't integrated into a LNB, since it is targeted at the MDU market. There will certainly be a DSWM LNB at some point, but when it will come and whether it will have 13 tuners or have more than 13 is unknown. I'd expect the announced DSWM13 to have a form factor and power requirement identical or nearly identical to the SWM8, since many products for the MDU market are designed specifically to hold multiple SWM8s.

 

There really isn't any reason for anyone to get too excited about DSWM yet, at least not to the point they think "I want one". It doesn't offer any benefits to the consumer over the current SWM anyone is yet aware of, aside from a few extra tuners. It won't have any effect on signal quality - the SNR is mostly set in stone in the LNB before it reaches the SWM/DSWM.

 

Speculation mode: ON

If I had to guess, I'd say we won't see a DSWM LNB until sometime next year, because I now feel fairly certain Directv will need a new LNB to receive everything on its upcoming D14 and D15 satellites. I'm starting to believe there's an outside chance we might see a whole new dish (for new installs only, the new LNB would work fine on the Slimline) Directv waiting a bit before integrating DSWM would have two benefits aside from waiting for the new LNB to be ready. One, the digital components in the DSWM get cheaper over time, and two, they might want to wait for the second generation version which will offer as many as 26 tuners. That would allow just about all residential installs to be done with a single wire.

 


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





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