Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by whobie, Jan 30, 2011.
So the signal strengths we are getting now will be the ones to stay moving forward
Why were the odd Tp signal so high then? Were they not actually coming from 77 west
Until the end of the year when the planned replacement satellite arrives, yes.
Footprints have not been released for QuetzSat-1 ... but the expectation is that all US locals will move to spotbeams. The new satellite is (as is the current satellites) intended to serve two markets --- the US and Mexico. Current use is for locals in the US (must be in the local's market to subscribe) or the DISH Mexico service in Mexico (must be in Mexico to subscribe).
DISH was temporarily using transponders on E1 ... which is generally aimed at Mexico although there is a US pattern. (For example, I'm too far north to use either of E1's pattern but can use E8's and E6's.)
77 West is an orbital location, not a specific satellite. Any of the satellites at that location can provide a signal (within the limits of the design and health of the satellite) that is seen as one location for us to aim our dishes at. Coverage from each satellite at the same location can vary.
I'm not so sure it is working. Motion and other compression artifacts seem somewhat worse to my eyes since the "event" on 77 and subsequent extra cramming on 61.5 and 72.7. In fact, in my humble opinion, MGM HD (which was sort of teetering on the edge before all of this in terms of artifacts anyway) looks one of the worst of the bunch -- even more noticeably softer than before the shift and with more blotchiness in dark scenes, increased motion artifacts during camera pans and fast movement, etc. Probably not so coincidentally, it also happens to be on the one EA transponder that has the dreaded 10 channels on it.
Let me ask you this, James, is there somewhere within the DISH tech structure that a person could express concern in hopes of convincing them that this 9-10 HD channel thing per Eastern Arc transponder might not be such a good idea? Or, do you think they're pretty much going to do what they want to do anyway, now that they've already given it a go?
I know I'm just one voice, but...
Thanks for all that you do!
(from a long-time lurker),
I'm hoping that they won't try 9 on a regular basis ... but I'm not hopeful. They need to create some space on Western Arc or they are basically done adding channels (with no new capacity in sight). Eastern Arc has plenty of room and they should be able to go back to 8 without capacity problems.
If you have specific issue with the quality of a channel (any channel) the email address is email@example.com . I would be as specific as possible with the issues you personally see - channels, times, programs and satellite setup (Eastern Arc, installed date, signal level is good). I'd stay away from the "I heard on the Internet that you're transmitting 9 HD channels per transponder - that sucks" type of complaint.
Hopefully DISH has already heard from customers or is monitoring themselves and looking forward to going back to a maximum of 8 (they did go back to 8 on the RSN transponder so I assume they got complaints). I'll be a lot happier after see the channels shuffle back to 8 in an uplink report.
The DISH Latino channels on Eastern Arc just moved from a single transponder on 72.7 to two transponders on 77 ... that is a good sign.
Only one transponder used before 1-30 has not been restored to service.
If DISH were to increase the HD number to 9 per transponder in the Western Arc, do we know what would be the maximum number of HD channels they'd be able to add ?.... Just wondering if the number is large enough to justify this action (in their minds) ....
DISH currently uses 19 transponders on Western Arc for HD, transmitting 143 HD channels (including 12 channels set aside for HD RSNs; one that is shared between channel 101 DNFYI, 454 HD PPV and 9465 Dallas Mavericks; and 130 dedicated 24/7 feeds). At 8 HDs per transponder that leaves them room for 9 new channel additions. Going to 9 HDs per transponder could open up room for 19 additional channel additions (28 total).
To seriously sacrifice HD PQ for just 19 more HD channels would not make sense to me...
However, during the Spring 2010 Charlie Chat there was a Skype question asked to Charlie about 24/7 HD RSN's... He answered that within a year (by Spring 2011) we'd be seeing full-time HD RSN's.... At that time, we were all left wondering how they were going to do this...
Perhaps--- unfortunately--- we may now have the answer, ie. increasing the number of HD channels per transponder for both Arcs.... Otherwise, how is DISH going to keep this (public) promise ?....
I'll let you know after DISH adds the channel 213 regional/local weather promised per a press release last June ... or the real Weather on the 8's promised many years ago (not the press select to run an app on the SD channel ... a real automatic app like DirecTV has) ... or when they explain what happened to Paladia which "replaced" Fuse per a press release last year until subscribers were told it was just a free preview.
RSNs are probably a more important promise ... but it would not be the first one to be forgotten. :eek2:
Yeah, these are indeed sad facts for such a large and prominent company...
Nonetheless, with your math of only 9 HD slots left, if you deduct the 4 dropped Disney HD channels which in theory they should be protecting for a future return, then all DISH really has is 5 HD slots left for new HD...
Unless they do something draconian (such as squeezing more HD's per transponder) I don't see how they can compete (against DTV and cable) with a future HD growth potential of only 5 slots... Am I missing something here ?.....
By the way, I thought the regional weather channels on 213 and local weather on the 8's were supposed to come from spotbeam transponders, not CONUS transponders...
The "on the 8's" could be a data feed with the video created by the receiver. Every receiver back to the 301/501 should be able to do the overlay.
I don't care where channel 213 comes from or how granular it is (number of regions) ... it could even be SD ... all that matters is they were promised, in writing, and the channels never appeared. But that's a rant for another thread.
James, why is the channel listing for orbital 77 from your uplink activity center different than the one on lyngsat. Which one is more updated?
Unless something shakes out differently, and unless I'm reading it incorrectly, solely judging by the (still testing) hi-def move-backs/fill-ins today to both 18 and 27 on 72.7, it appears that they are indeed going for nine channels per transponder on EA. Is this what you're seeing too with your new data, James?
Oh well, if true...why am I not surprised?
Christian posting our reports with 2 days delay at least (10 day now, after his vacation).
Uplink activity reports coming here in REAL TIME practically.
Mine is accurate. Some of the channel names could use help (especially affiliations for local channels) but the pages in my Uplink Center are created from scratch every morning (and refreshed if there are major changes) ... so where you see a date on LyngSat that may be from last year or before the date on my pages (at the bottom) is today. (Pages outside the Uplink Center part of the site are updated manually.)
The worst offender is the 10 HD PPVs on 72.7 transponder 12 - although they did stick with 7 HD PPVs and a test channel on transponder 16.
Would the problems with 77 cause all of my receivers to report a drift of +14 for its LNB on my 1000.4 dish?
No. From the number it looks like one of your LNBs just went bad.
I have all of my channels and the signal strenghts on all of the 77 transponders are in the 45 to 60 range.
I only get the message when I select MENU-6-1-3 for System Info on all of my receivers (211, 211k, 622). I've never seen any other message displayed on any of the receivers.
If you look at the attached "Local Oscillator Drift LNB Replacement" document from Dish its states:
NOTE: If the LNB Drift is greater than +/- 12.00 MHz, and the system is functioning properly, this may indicate a false reading and should be ignored. NO LNB REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED.
Maybe I don't really have a problem.