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
- - - - -

Digital SWM theory and speculation


  • Please log in to reply
236 replies to this topic

#81 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:26 PM

seems to me it's not good sign to see RDBS/BSS signals on our DVR/IRD soon

 

???

 

I don't understand. Why would that be a bad sign? D14 is scheduled to launch in less than six months, if they plan to use its RDBS/BSS capability Directv needs some way for customers to receive it.

 

Anyway, we've only seen signs of a DSWM LNB in the receivers, there isn't anything there that points to RDBS. I merely mention it as one of the ways Directv could eliminate the 5LNB (as a possible explanation for the missing "5DS" option) but that could also be done without RDBS.


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


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

#82 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,757 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:30 PM

???

 

I don't understand. Why would that be a bad sign? D14 is scheduled to launch in less than six months, if they plan to use its RDBS/BSS capability Directv needs some way for customers to receive it.

 

Anyway, we've only seen signs of a DSWM LNB in the receivers, there isn't anything there that points to RDBS. I merely mention it as one of the ways Directv could eliminate the 5LNB (as a possible explanation for the missing "5DS" option) but that could also be done without RDBS.

my beef in the first digit - "3" for new LNBF what 'suppose' to be compatible with RDBS load of the new D14 ...



#83 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:37 PM

my beef in the first digit - "3" for new LNBF what 'suppose' to be compatible with RDBS load of the new D14 ...

 

What digit would you expect? The "3" is because it receives from 99, 101 and 103, right? The "5" adds two more satellite locations. If RDBS is added from 99 and/or 103 on a new LNB, it isn't adding new locations, just new bands, so still a "3".

 

The same feedhorn that in today's LNBs can receive both Ka lo and Ka hi at the same time can, if enlarged slightly and with the appropriate LO, also receive RDBS. That "selectively reflective surface" patent for a LNB that receives Ka from 101 specifically mentions sizing the feedhorn differently whether or not it needs to receive RDBS.


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


#84 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,757 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:40 PM

well, thinking of RDBS as new approach of delivering sat signal, my thoughts was it would be marked differently to show new range ... perhaps  is not ...



#85 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,700 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:04 AM

What the? Anybody saw this?

It's a very good question.

Since there isn't a DSWM LNB anywhere near a test cycle, could this be merely a "placeholder"?

 

I've heard from someone who has seen a DSWM LNB [prototype] that DirecTV has issued a part number for a DSWM LNB, BUT the cost still exceeds a SL3 + SWiM-16.

This still points to this LNB being used in the DRE market, like the DSWM13, for "loop through" systems, that can justify the cost.

 

Having a DSWM LNB designed does suggest that when the cost drops below the LNB & SWiM-16, there will be one for residential use.


A.K.A VOS

#86 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 17 January 2014 - 01:04 PM

It's a very good question.

Since there isn't a DSWM LNB anywhere near a test cycle, could this be merely a "placeholder"?

 

I've heard from someone who has seen a DSWM LNB [prototype] that DirecTV has issued a part number for a DSWM LNB, BUT the cost still exceeds a SL3 + SWiM-16.

This still points to this LNB being used in the DRE market, like the DSWM13, for "loop through" systems, that can justify the cost.

 

Having a DSWM LNB designed does suggest that when the cost drops below the LNB & SWiM-16, there will be one for residential use.

 

 

I'm skeptical of a DSWM LNB being produced for the loop thru market. Other than really small hotels, I suppose if you had a hotel that consisted of a bunch of standalone 12 plex units that had loop thru wiring it might make some sense, but it really doesn't save much over a legacy dish and DSWM13 combo. The DSWM13 is already targeted at a niche market, limiting its production quantity. Adding a DSWM LNB to that market splits it into two even smaller niches. The one benefit I could see from Directv's perspective is that would allow for some real world testing of a DSWM LNB in a well-controlled environment.

 

Without context for the cost figure relayed to you (i.e. at what production quantity / targeted to replace what in Directv's offerings) it is hard to tell what it means. Either way, adding a DSWM LNB entry to the NR firmware implies there is or soon will be testing of DSWM LNBs. If the ASIC was judged to be too expensive, but they're testing, they're clearly planning to replace it with one made on a smaller process. Or already have done so. Shrinking it to a smaller process means it would cost less, with the side benefit of using less power/running cooler.

 

Then the question becomes, is the 45nm ASIC from the the paper the "too expensive" one or the replacement? Learning the power consumption and channel spacing for the DSWM13, once that information can be made public, may help answer that question.

 

Based on the EN5400 on Entropic's site claiming "20 user channels" and knowing the 45nm ASIC is capable of 23 "user channels" (the guide is the 24th) leads me to expect that the DSWM13 will have spacing >50 MHz between channel centers and power consumption of more than 10 watts, which would point to it using an earlier version of the ASIC. On the other hand, maybe the EN5400 is the ASIC from the paper, and it had three channels disabled for some unknown reason (to reduce the max frequency used?)


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


#87 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 17 January 2014 - 01:40 PM

I think a dswim would be targeted at bed and breakfast places as they usually don't have to terribly many rooms....

#88 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,700 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:29 PM

I think a dswim would be targeted at bed and breakfast places as they usually don't have to terribly many rooms....

You're on the same track.

"Extended stay" places in Silicon Valley tend to be small multi-building, where a dish on each would work better than trying to feed all from a main dish.

 

I don't think Slice will ever be convinced, but everything so far has the DSWM [money] being used for commercial DRE.


A.K.A VOS

#89 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 19 January 2014 - 03:23 PM

There is a good reason to use a DSWM LNB in the small multi building hotels you're talking about versus a legacy LNB + DSWM13 that I overlooked. Integrating the DSWM ASIC into the LNB itself allows for frequency drift correction, which is not possible using a DSWM13 with the (current) legacy LNB. Given a separate dish on every building, the likelihood of an intermittent LNB due to temperature/age induced frequency drift is multiplied by the number of buildings/dishes. Using the DSWM LNB dish would increase the level of reliability it is possible to achieve over a legacy dish + DSWM13 solution.

 

While you're correct that we've seen no concrete evidence of DSWM products intended for markets beyond DRE, they have to start somewhere, and it makes sense to start with the one market that Directv was unable to serve at all with the ASWM. Unless you're suggesting that the ability to select a DSWM LNB dish is a mistake - something intended for the special DRE firmware that was accidentally enabled in NR firmware - it is hard to conclude anything but that Directv is or soon will be testing the DSWM LNB for a market other than DRE. They know exactly what it costs, why would they conduct external testing of something they considered too expensive to deploy?


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


#90 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,950 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 19 January 2014 - 04:01 PM

BTW;

 

Anyone have and willing to share a copy of ETSI's EN 50494 document for DiSeqC signaling over single cable satellite systems. :)

 

Reason is I suspect DIRECTV is using this protocol for communication on the 2.3 MHz control channel, and for ODU to IRD on the SWM channels themselves, for the A/DSWM. With proprietary codes most likely of course.

 

Everything online is pay for this document unfortunately.

 

Thanks;

 

PM me if anyone has anything.   


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#91 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,757 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:18 PM

DiSEqC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiSEqC

 

I used papers from Eutelsat - European sites



#92 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 19 January 2014 - 07:48 PM

BTW;

 

Anyone have and willing to share a copy of ETSI's EN 50494 document for DiSeqC signaling over single cable satellite systems. :)

 

Reason is I suspect DIRECTV is using this protocol for communication on the 2.3 MHz control channel, and for ODU to IRD on the SWM channels themselves, for the A/DSWM. With proprietary codes most likely of course.

 

Everything online is pay for this document unfortunately.

 

Thanks;

 

PM me if anyone has anything.   

 

A couple minutes of googling found this Chinese site that appears to let you read the document, but not download a copy. Or at least I tried clicking on the green down arrow that I assumed means "download this" and it popped a window with a bunch of Chinese characters on it. I don't know if it is asking me for money, to solve a Chinese captcha or what :)

 

http://www.docin.com/p-284974005.html

 

You'd still need some sort of equipment able to decode the FSK tones to see the actual content being sent back and forth in a SWM environment, unless the specs themselves tell you what you what to know.


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


#93 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,700 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:28 PM

Unless you're suggesting that the ability to select a DSWM LNB dish is a mistake - something intended for the special DRE firmware that was accidentally enabled in NR firmware - it is hard to conclude anything but that Directv is or soon will be testing the DSWM LNB for a market other than DRE.

This is where we differ, as I don't know your contacts or test experience.

I've either been part of, or have known about tests [some I haven't been able to discuss] and "to date" there is no sign of a DSWM LNB "in test", or has anyone said there are plans for residential use/testing.

 

Those that have been on the forum for some time are familiar with "soon", but a residential DSWM [LNB or not] hasn't even reached "soon" status.


A.K.A VOS

#94 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:53 PM

I think if they do go this route, it will be after they see dswim working in hotels for a year and they can figure out how to get The costs under that of the current swims before they Will even bother considering testing it. Unfortunately... I'd like to see it now myself. But that's just not logical from their standpoint IMHO. Unless they are installing a LOT more swim16s than we realize and they have some reason to want to Get rid of two separate outputs from a swim16.

#95 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,700 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 19 January 2014 - 09:08 PM

I think if...  they can figure out how to get The costs under that of the current swims

The SL3 & SWiM-16 price is "the gating item" here.

Once a DSWM is projected to be cheaper, it will become reality.

The DSWM technology currently is only economical for markets the ASWM can't support. 


A.K.A VOS

#96 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:03 AM

This is where we differ, as I don't know your contacts or test experience.

I've either been part of, or have known about tests [some I haven't been able to discuss] and "to date" there is no sign of a DSWM LNB "in test", or has anyone said there are plans for residential use/testing.

 

Those that have been on the forum for some time are familiar with "soon", but a residential DSWM [LNB or not] hasn't even reached "soon" status.

 

You have the testing experience here, I have none with Directv. Nor do I have any contacts that would provide me any inside info on what they're planning. I'm just "speculating" as per the thread title based on what I observe/find, and what I know about design and manufacturing costs for ASICs similar to the DSWM. If you say there's nothing "soon" then if it is coming it is further away than however far out your information goes. IIRC you were involved in testing SWM, do you remember when SWM support first showed up in the receiver firmware? Was it in advance of when you even heard about SWM, or were early testers forced to use CE firmware because the NR firmware didn't even support it?

 

My hunch is that the timeline depends on RDBS/BSS. We know Directv has two satellites launching in the next year with full CONUS RDBS payloads. D14 is destined for 99, the orbital slot for D15 hasn't yet been made public, though most assume it will go to 103. Currently D12 is broadcasting four RDBS spots in the western US, but it isn't know (at least by me) what, if anything, this is used for. FWIW, the "single LO" patent shows reception of RDBS from 103 but not 99. That may not mean anything though, as they had a patent for a LNB that receives Ka from 101, but it turned out that band was never used for customer content.
 

So plenty of unknowns, but assuming RDBS will be used for customer content Directv will need to replace both the legacy and (almost certainly) the SWM LNB with updated models to be capable of receiving these new bands from 99 and/or 103. Perhaps the DSWM LNB that shows up in the firmware allows reception of RDBS from 103 for testing in the markets served by those four spot beams from D12. Maybe when they do RDBS "for real" it will use a DSWM LNB, but the customer base that requires RDBS reception will be small and can better support a slightly higher cost. For instance, if the content on 95* was replicated on RDBS, Directv would surely come out ahead installing a DSWM LNB rather than a second dish and an external SWM module. If it also replicates content from 119*, it would explain seeing a Slimline-3DS but not a 5DS as an option - as well as having only 14 input bands.

 

Perhaps RDBS will be used for 4K, which will initially be a rather small market, but Directv can charge those early adopters a "4K fee" or 4K install fee or whatever to easily defray the cost of a new LNB that may cost a few dollars more. If/when it gets bigger market penetration the DSWM ASIC could be shrunk to a smaller process and made less expensive if necessary. One of the moderators of the "other site" stated there will be a Genie HR54 and HR46, one being a lower cost version and the other being a model that supports 4K. Maybe the 4K one has 10 tuners and requires a DSWM to be used to its full capability, who knows?


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


#97 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,757 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:24 AM

to give some info - _factory_ FW for H20 had FTM support (hope you know difference between production and factory versions ;) )


Edited by P Smith, 20 January 2014 - 12:25 AM.


#98 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:36 AM

The SL3 & SWiM-16 price is "the gating item" here.

Once a DSWM is projected to be cheaper, it will become reality.

The DSWM technology currently is only economical for markets the ASWM can't support. 

 

Due to how foundry pricing works, and the amount of NRE wrapped up in the design and mask costs, I think the gating point may be what a SL3S costs, not what a SL3 and SWM16 costs. They may not produce enough quantity as a SWM16 replacement to get the cost down low enough for it to be cost effective as such (depending on how much it costs for an installer's labor) As a complete replacement for the ASWM, the cost would be $10/ea, at the very most, and possibly as low as $5.

 

I don't know what a SL3S costs versus a SL3DS that includes that up to $10 ASIC. Assuming it is more they need to shrink the ASIC to make it cheaper or make a calculation that other benefits of the DSWM outweigh the added costs. One thing we both agree on is that until the numbers work, they won't do this. We may not agree on what numbers they'll use, however...


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


#99 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,231 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:45 AM

to give some info - _factory_ FW for H20 had FTM support (hope you know difference between production and factory versions ;) )

 

Were they always shipping from the factory with FTM support? Though I haven't paid close attention, the earliest production date I remember seeing on one of my H20s is May 2005. That would be like two years before SWM was finally released to the public...


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


#100 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,700 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:00 AM

You have the testing experience here, I have none with Directv. Nor do I have any contacts that would provide me any inside info on what they're planning. I'm just "speculating" as per the thread title based on what I observe/find, and what I know about design and manufacturing costs for ASICs similar to the DSWM. If you say there's nothing "soon" then if it is coming it is further away than however far out your information goes. IIRC you were involved in testing SWM, do you remember when SWM support first showed up in the receiver firmware? Was it in advance of when you even heard about SWM, or were early testers forced to use CE firmware because the NR firmware didn't even support it?

"SWiM" or FTM as it was first called required a hardware design to support it.

The H/HR20 were the first with it and it was still a year or more before there was any software support for it.

Yes it first was in a test group before the NR.

The receiver firmware change from ASWM to DSWM "Seems to be" a minor change for the narrower spacing, and has little impact on the code.

 

There is nothing wrong with "speculating".

Yours have been "so far out there", on this subject, that this thread was created.


A.K.A VOS




spam firewall