# FCC Approves Dish Acquisition of Sky Angel's Transponders at 61.5°



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation seeks FCC consent to the assignment of Dominion Video Satellite, Inc.'s authorization to operate on 8 DBS channels (25-32) at 61.5 W.L."
FCC Filing Info

As noted in the Sky Angel forum, Sky Angel is moving to become an IPTV service.
This transfer would give E* licenses for 30 of the 32 transponder channels at 61.5°.


----------



## Aransay (Jun 19, 2006)

mroe lcoals
use 61.5 rot eh enw hd ll palttform 

waht you think


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

James Long said:


> "EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation seeks FCC consent to the assignment of Dominion Video Satellite, Inc.'s authorization to operate on 8 DBS channels (25-32) at 61.5 W.L."
> FCC Filing Info
> 
> As noted in the Sky Angel forum, Sky Angel is moving to become an IPTV service.
> This transfer would give E* licenses for 30 of the 32 transponder channels at 61.5°.


 So who gets the other two transponders?


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> So who gets the other two transponders?


Currently Dish controlls them under an STA that they inherited from Voom.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We could see a replay of the argument at the FCC over E* taking over the Voom licenses at 61.5°. Voom had 11 licensed transponders and Sky Angel has 8. Rehash the debate (which did not seem to be much at the FCC) over whether those licensed transponders should go to a company with plenty of bandwidth (104 DBS transponders licensed - D* has 46 DBS transponders) or if they should be set aside for some third party that has yet to make a serious bid to become a DBS provider.

The two transponders under STA remain in limbo ... at the launch of E3 E* used those transponders as needed (as well as the Cablevision/Voom transponders under STA until the Voom service was launched). When the FCC transfered the V* licenses they left those STA transponders in limbo ... waiting for that third party.

What kind of viable service can be done on two transponders? Perhaps one could launch 70-80 channels of SD MPEG4 ... and if one could get the SkyAngel transponders one could have a system of 350-400 channels total. Would such system, especially from 61.5°, be viable?

Voom tried it on 13 transponders ... 11 licensed and 2 under STA. Perhaps they entered the market too early (although they barely met their FCC construction and launch deadlines). Would a Voom like service with today's technology and marketplace survive any better?

SkyAngel had 8 transponders ... their FCC construction and launch deadlines were never met - just waived as they made their deal with E* for use of E3. They self limited their system to 2 transponders and all "religious" channels. But they too struggled. The original plan (all religious) was discarded last year when they introduced secular channels to the lineup. The expense of paying for the rights to carry those secular channels caught up with them this year and they decided to charge "lifetime" subscribers extra for these four channels (something they should have done for all subscribers last year). Instead of being a cashless operation with ministries paying for their delivery to SkyAngel (no rights fees), E* paying for satellite uplink and delivery per their arrangement and non-lifetime customers whatever "other costs" there were (billing, advertisement, production for Angel-2, etc) they added channels that wanted rights fees. Now they are going a different way. They, like Voom, have failed.

So who is the next contestant? For the FCC to block this transfer there needs to be another _viable_ bid for use of that space. Some company who can afford to launch a satellite (no guarantee that E* will lease E3 to them) and provide receivers and all the ground support for a DBS system. I don't see that happening.

The argument is the same as it was in 2005 and likely it will have the same outcome ... E* will get the transponders. Whether or not the FCC releases the STA transponders is irrelevant as long as they keep renewing the STA. They might as well leave them as STA in case that third party ever appears.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Of course, if the FCC denies the transfer, there would likely be no transfer. A third party would need some cash. It is hard to suspect the FCC will not approve this, since the majority of the transponders have been providing DiSH Network service anyway.

The STA is somewhat troublesome due to the constraints placed on the use of the frequencies. There would be no service which could be considered "permanent" since the notification requirements would be there.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

The FCC licensing of the "Reverse DBS" frequencies drastically changes things and increases the likelihood of FCC approval.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Has it occurred to anyone that D* could make a run for those? Perhaps a creative way to load a bunch of small market locals in when they have to go off the 72 location next year?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

rocatman said:


> The FCC licensing of the "Reverse DBS" frequencies drastically changes things and increases the likelihood of FCC approval.


I am nots ure I follow. How does one affect the other in this manner/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Terry K said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that D* could make a run for those? Perhaps a creative way to load a bunch of small market locals in when they have to go off the 72 location next year?


That would be nice for D*, but SkyAngel has a deal with E* for the transfer. The FCC would have to deny the transfer AND revolke SkyAngel's licenses for the transponders to be available to anyone else. (Should the transfer fail SkyAngel maintains control of the transponders until their licenses expire.)


Geronimo said:


> I am nots ure I follow. How does one affect the other in this manner/


"Reverse DBS" opens up a lot more space for DBS services. The argument that DBS space is a finite resource that should be shared between more than two providers is less convincing on the heels of the FCC opening up much more space for future DBS.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

rocatman said:


> The FCC licensing of the "Reverse DBS" frequencies drastically changes things and increases the likelihood of FCC approval.


Is there any link to a ruling on this issue? I suspect you are referring to the new DBS band which is not really "Reverse" but does downlink on some of the current uplink frequencies.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I blame the FCC for the "Reverse DBS" label. It is not entirely reversed, just allowing the "earth to space" frequencies of DBS to be used as "space to earth" on the new assignments. The "earth to space" of the new service is in the 24GHz band.

Prior discussion and links to the FCC here. This is where the FCC calls it "reverse band".


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> T"Reverse DBS" opens up a lot more space for DBS services. The argument that DBS space is a finite resource that should be shared between more than two providers is less convincing on the heels of the FCC opening up much more space for future DBS.


Maybe I am missing something but you seem to be arguing that the earlier poster was incorrect.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

If Dish receives approval from the FCC for the Sky Angel TPs, Dish has much more incentive to put another satellite at 61.5 W to help out/replace E-3.


----------



## Stephen J (Mar 26, 2006)

How long would this take to go thru? I am really hoping to get the Cleveland Locals in HD and was thinking that this could help speed things along.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Dominion is saying the transition may take a year. Unknown how long it will take to replace EchoStar 3.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

JohnH said:


> Dominion is saying the transition may take a year.


If it is anything like other things that Dominion says (like having their own uplink center that they said that they would have ever since they started service) it may take longer than that. I also expect to see a "class action" (lawsuit) from "lifetime" subscribers who are no longer going to be able to get the service via satellite and will be required to pay for another receiver that might not have all the (DVR, two tuners) features that their current receiver has.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't remember exactly how long it took for the Rainbow1 transfer, but it was less than a year. Good point about needing a replacement for E3. This deal adds "1.75 transponders" until E* can get a fully working satellite up there. (I suspect that won't take long.)

If I had to make a wild guess about the future I would say 61.5° would be one of the the target orbital locations for the new MPEG4 service. But that is a wild guess.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Should mention, the "transition" is from Satellite delivery to IPTV delivery of the Sky Angel service. Regardless of how long the FCC function takes, the Sky Angel Satellite service would likely still exist until that "transition" is complete.


James, it would seem that 61.5 would not be one of the "two" MPEG4 slots since it is too far from a good ConUS location.

BTW: AMC-16 made a second stop, this time at 97w.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My thought was two MPEG4 service slots ... not a two orbital location service. Point your dish at the one you can see (within reason). Until E* releases the details it is all guesswork - I did label my guess as "wild".


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

It has been reported that Charlie said the repoint would involve a DiSH 500, not an 18" dish exactly. It is a given that you can't cram that much MPEG4 on one slot. I am only wondering if new type LNBFs will be required.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Dish500 would be acceptable size and is a proven concept on 9° spacings (which is really a 9° to 18° spacing from the ground depending on how far north you are). That is where I suspect narrower spacing will fail ... trying to get 4° spaced satellites on a dish designed for Florida or San Diego in Maine or Washington. Unless the new dish has an adjustment for spacing between LNBs 4° is going to be "interesting". There are no paired DBS locations available (where a Dish500 could hit two DBS birds) without killing the MPEG2 services. I'm still leaning toward two single satellite locations - pick one and aim an 18" dish.

Anything other than DBS is going to need new LNBFs. If it isn't DBS it could be fun getting a signal to a small dish - and if it isn't an existing band getting FCC approval and satellites built and launched quickly is near impossible. That makes it easy (for me) to dismiss "Reverse DBS" and new allotments.

E* may be planning to use their KuX assignments for this ... but anything other than the usual DBS or FSS or Ka is kind of off the map. 77° is a possibilty, with FCC approval, and doable (15.5° sky spread with Canadian 72° nestled in between).

Plenty of options ... the important thing (especially for this thread) is E* securing the asset. They have had use of six of SkyAngel's transponders (less failures) at 61.5° since they launched the satellite. Not losing that space and gaining the two SkyAngel used transponders is important ... regardless of what they put there.


----------



## Doggfather (Apr 19, 2004)

It is likely (if not certain) that Rainbow-1 will have it's spots fired back up finally. Once this occurs, expect to see the NYC locals & many of those now found on 118.7 moved to it pronto. HD & SD now that they are out of the Distants market. Also expect to see E3 replaced soon. Likely with a leased bird. ;0

-Doggfather


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

There are no NYC locals on 118.7.

NYC, Boston and DC HD locals are already on 61.5.


----------



## sansha (Apr 27, 2007)

Bill R said:


> If it is anything like other things that Dominion says (like having their own uplink center that they said that they would have ever since they started service) it may take longer than that. I also expect to see a "class action" (lawsuit) from "lifetime" subscribers who are no longer going to be able to get the service via satellite and will be required to pay for another receiver that might not have all the (DVR, two tuners) features that their current receiver has.


Based on the thread on sky angel relevant to this, the sky angel subbers (lifetime or otherwise) don't seem to much care.

I have broadband already (many sky angel subbers probably don't -- why control TV but let in the internet?) so I have no added cost there. But I'm not keen about not having the Sky angel channels on the guide, about having to purchase another receiver (or use a computer to watch them, right...) about not having DVR. I got a lifetime sub years ago for the "family and classic TV" part that they advertised. It seemed like a good deal. Right now I have sky angels channels on 3 dvrs, along with dish's top 250, locals, the HD package and some superstations. Sky angels plans mean less convenience and more cost to me, for a service that I only occasionally watch, but enjoyed having. I imagine quite a few of their lifetime subbers are casual watchers like me, who got it because they already had dish and thought it might be worth it. I can't imagine they won't be losing viewers over this, perhaps more than they gain, but I guess they must have done some study that says otherwise. Just the idea that I'd have to purchase 1-3 more receivers (and unless they're wireless, working out wiring to three rooms) sounds like more trouble than the service is worth. But we'll see what the requirements actually are.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bill R said:


> If it is anything like other things that Dominion says (like having their own uplink center that they said that they would have ever since they started service) it may take longer than that. I also expect to see a "class action" (lawsuit) from "lifetime" subscribers who are no longer going to be able to get the service via satellite and will be required to pay for another receiver that might not have all the (DVR, two tuners) features that their current receiver has.


SkyAngel has always piggybacked off of E* equipment ... so not having the features of E* receivers is not their concern. Moving to IPTV could actually add other features, such as a rewind (watch anything that was on in the past 48 hours). When you're doing one to one communications over the net you might as well stream what people want instead of what is on now.

Not having broadband is the killer though ... that and asking "lifetime" subscribers to buy a $120 receiver plus $25 per month service (their Canadian rates). Perhaps when IPTV is released the rates will be better ... I doubt it.

There are "lifetime" subscribers who believe they got their money's worth ... but won't give another dime to the company. Unfortunately that applies to the satellite model as well. SkyAngel depends on people who support whether or not they are getting their money's worth.

One more interesting thought ... let a ViP-622 DVR or ViP-211 be a SkyAngel terminal. That would help, for those on E* with broadband.


----------



## sansha (Apr 27, 2007)

"Not having broadband is the killer though ... that and asking "lifetime" subscribers to buy a $120 receiver plus $25 per month service (their Canadian rates). Perhaps when IPTV is released the rates will be better ... I doubt it."

They can't expect lifetime subbers to pay for service. The receiver yes, service, no.

And from what I hear, the reciever isn't necessary if you are willing to watch on your computer.


----------



## awp (Jun 1, 2004)

James Long said:


> ..........
> 
> E* paying for satellite uplink and delivery per their arrangement and non-lifetime customers whatever "other costs" there were (billing, advertisement, production for Angel-2, etc) they added channels that wanted rights fees. Now they are going a different way. They, like Voom, have failed.
> 
> ...


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

If Dish gets the okay from the FCC, they could put the Sky Angel channels on the two TPs that they have permission to use temporarily i.e., TPs 23 and 24 since eventually Sky Angel will phase out their service via satellite. The FCC required notification to customers when using these "STA" TPs of the possible loss of service would be no big deal since the service will soon be terminated anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As long as SkyAngel's service consumes two transponders it doesn't help or hurt E* to move them around on the satellite.


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

James Long said:


> I don't remember exactly how long it took for the Rainbow1 transfer, but it was less than a year. Good point about needing a replacement for E3. This deal adds "1.75 transponders" until E* can get a fully working satellite up there. (I suspect that won't take long.)
> 
> If I had to make a wild guess about the future I would say 61.5° would be one of the the target orbital locations for the new MPEG4 service. But that is a wild guess.


I still think E* was playing games with the SkyAngel TP partially failing.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

digiblur said:


> I still think E* was playing games with the SkyAngel TP partially failing.


I suspect Sky Angel requested an additional data feed and the bandwidth consumed by that required shutting down 3 channels. The failure explanation never worked here.


----------



## Doggfather (Apr 19, 2004)

The NYC channels etc will move to SPOTS on 61.5.... They will be firing up the Rainbow-1 spots for east coast locals. Putting locals on national tr's is a big waste of space. I kind of hoped that NYC and LA will stay conus but it is understandable as to why they wont. Ciel-2's spots @ 129 in a year from now will take the LA HD's to spot vs conus.

-D


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Spots only save space if you put up more than one of them on a transponder. Voom (Cablevision) designed R1 (now called E12) with a lot of spot beams but they also need a lot of uplink centers to use it all. The spots also serve cities across the country.

The NY HD LIL channels don't "need" to be seen outside of their area ... but until E* needs to share that transponder with another market (and only east coast markets are using 61.5°) there is no reason to move to spotbeam and plenty of reason not to (needing new uplinks to serve the spots).

Cost vs benefit.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Doggfather said:


> The NYC channels etc will move to SPOTS on 61.5....


NYC SD channels that are currently ConUS will remain so, because Northeast core slot (110/119) spots are saturated, and E* will never move NYC SD to a wing slot.

Re NYC HD, what James said.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

joblo said:


> NYC SD channels that are currently ConUS will remain so, because Northeast core slot (110/119) spots are saturated, and E* will never move NYC SD to a wing slot.


He was talking about NYC HD, which is already on a wing slot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> He was talking about NYC HD, which is already on a wing slot.


Covered in the second line of joblo's post.


----------



## aegrotatio (Mar 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Spots only save space if you put up more than one of them on a transponder. Voom (Cablevision) designed R1 (now called E12) with a lot of spot beams but they also need a lot of uplink centers to use it all. The spots also serve cities across the country.


Where was R1 supposed to be located initially?
I didn't think it really covers CONUS from 61.5?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

aegrotatio said:


> Where was R1 supposed to be located initially?
> I didn't think it really covers CONUS from 61.5?


It is where is was supposed to be initially.

Sky Angel is being received in all of the 48 Continental States from 61.5, so coverage is somewhat ConUS, but it is not a "ConUS" slot.


----------



## aegrotatio (Mar 27, 2006)

JohnH said:


> It is where is was supposed to be initially.
> 
> Sky Angel is being received in all of the 48 Continental States from 61.5, so coverage is somewhat ConUS, but it is not a "ConUS" slot.


Wow, in California it must look like it's getting signals bouncing off the ground, hehe.

Can anyone point to an R1 footprint map?
I seem to remember that Cablevision was always very secret about this bird being one of the first birds with more than a few spot beams.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

aegrotatio said:


> Wow, in California it must look like it's getting signals bouncing off the ground, hehe.


Not as bad as getting 148w here in Southeast PA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

R1 (E12) was designed for 61.5° ... with spot beams that cover major cities from the east coast across to Los Angeles. It is "ConUS", but not really a good angle from the West coast. Still, there were Voom DBS subscribers way out West.

It is a tighter pattern that E3 (also at 61.5°). Some people were annoyed when E* moved HD from E3 to E12 and their "off coast" viewing required a bigger dish or became impossible.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

OK, so what 61.5 transponders are currently coming of E3 vs E12?

I see a great disparity in signal strength on my 61.5 dish. I ended up tweaking it for the 2 Sky Angel transponders (I presume those are still E3).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Michael P said:


> OK, so what 61.5 transponders are currently coming of E3 vs E12?


TNGTony keeps track of that kind of detail: http://ekb.dbstalk.com/61-5list.htm

E12 is not physically capable of covering the even channels 2 through 22 nor channels 25 through 32. It can cover odd channels 1 through 23 and 24.

E3 is 60% failed and can only cover 79% of the remaining transponders E* is responsible for serving at 61.5° (including serving up SkyAngel). Which leaves four transponders unusable at the moment.



> I see a great disparity in signal strength on my 61.5 dish. I ended up tweaking it for the 2 Sky Angel transponders (I presume those are still E3).


Yep. E12 doesn't go that high.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

Could this mean that I can get all of SkyAngel's lineup without getting more equipment?

Or, does this mean that SkyAngel is being bought and then the satellites will be used for other things, which means SkyAngel will cease to exist?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

No.

Search for discussion on Sky Amgel going to IPTV.


----------



## Aransay (Jun 19, 2006)

regre it goes the slt hoerp of btn ades dahm


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Here's where Sky Angel is going... http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=89444


----------



## tpbrady (Sep 1, 2004)

There seems to be some confusion about MPEG2 and MPEG4 and satellites. MPEG2 and 4 are ways to encode video. The satellite is not involved in the encoding process. A satellite will not be reserved for a single format. A transponder probably will because of the DVB standard. For example the Fairbanks and Juneau digital local channels are MPEG4 on the 148 satellite. The best assumption you can make on MPEG4 versus MPEG2 is that any new HD services will be MPEG4 only and be placed on satellites that people's dishes are viewing. That will probably be true for both DirecTV and DISH. 

Digital locals do pose a significant problem. If all local broadcasters go digital on the prescribed date, DISH and DirecTV both face a problem of what resolution to send them in. They would love to send them in the native format provided (1080i HD for example) but would only do that in MPEG4 because they couldn't stand the bandwidth hit otherwise. For most local packages they will probably be forced to offer them in SD format and then start transitioning markets based on the production rates of receivers they could direct to upgrades. Their might be a few key markets where they offer them in a mix of formats, but that might be difficult since I am not sure if you can mix MPEG 2 and 4 in the same DVB multiplex. Even if they run a mix of formats, the lowest common denominator is MPEG2 meaning if they run MPEG4 for HD feeds they will still have to send the same stream in MPEG2SD raising the bandwidth ante. 

The long pole in the tent is MPEG-4 set tops and then bandwidth. If they can produce and deploy enough set tops will they have enough bandwidth to send the locals in HD format?


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Post title says it all. Looks like Dish will have room for more HD. Now they just need to replace E-3. Perhaps it will be worth Dish moving E-6 from 110 to there at least temporarily. Here is the FCC website address:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=595860


----------



## n0qcu (Mar 23, 2002)

rocatman said:


> Looks like Dish will have room for more HD.


Not much room, Dish has been using 6 of Sky Angels 8 transponders for quite awhile. They will just belong to Dish now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

n0qcu said:


> Not much room, Dish has been using 6 of Sky Angels 8 transponders for quite awhile. They will just belong to Dish now.


Sort of.

Transponder failures on E3 at 61.5° have led to a reduction in the number of transponders E* can use ... including not being able to use all six of the transponders they leased from SkyAngel (in exchange for transmitting SkyAngel's signals).

But you are right, when E* clears off SkyAngel's programming they will have space for up to 12 additional HD channels or 24 SD channels. Not the full 96 HD or 192 SD channels that could be done on eight transponders.


----------



## aegrotatio (Mar 27, 2006)

Concerning Rainbow 1's spot-beams, I am told that in order to use all of them the bird requires 15 separate uplink centers.
How can this be true? I don't understand how.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

aegrotatio said:


> Concerning Rainbow 1's spot-beams, I am told that in order to use all of them the bird requires 15 separate uplink centers.
> How can this be true? I don't understand how.


As designed the spotbeam receives an uplink and then downlinks to same area. Not necessary a bad design for spotbeams as the signal otherwise needs some other way to get to a central uplink center, just not what DISH has been doing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tnsprin said:


> As designed the spotbeam receives an uplink and then downlinks to same area. Not necessary a bad design for spotbeams as the signal otherwise needs some other way to get to a central uplink center, just not what DISH has been doing.


A correct answer!

Satellite companies can only uplink on the transponders that they hold license for. E12 (R1) was designed by Rainbow DBS to use their licenses ... 1-21 odd ... plus the two unassigned transponders (23 and 24). In order to get as many downlink beams as they wanted they pretty much had to design an uplink center in every city. Most are paired. For example, the Chicago and Detroit spot beams are designed to be fed from an uplink near Chicago.

With E*'s other satellites there are a large number of ConUS beams still active. For example, E7 at 119° has 25 spot beams and 16 ConUS beams on the 21 transponder frequencies E* holds license to. Feeding those requires 41 uplinks. E* is able to feed E7 via two uplink centers (21 uplinks per center means 42 possible uplinks ... enough to serve the need).

Fully active E12 (R1) has more than 100 downlinks. Trying to do that on 13 uplink transponders requires many uplink centers.


----------



## aegrotatio (Mar 27, 2006)

Ahh, thanks for the information.
The Echostar birds have that much more room for uplinking to multiple spotbeams where the Rainbow-1 original license does not allow for that because they have many fewer spots. Got it.
Personally I might have opted to have the bird configurable in-flight so as more transponders become available they can do multiple spots per uplink--the TWTAs convert the frequency anyway, just convert to a different one.
Interesting.


----------

