# More DBS Bandwith?



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Will the near future afford the DBS providers more bandwidth? (i.e. more transponders?) They seem limited at present.

As HDTV, including local broadcast, continues to propoagte and cable systems improve the delivery of their offering, right now it seems the biggest challenge facing D* and E* is how to improve existing signals (less compression) and accomodate future higher-definition prgramming. Both of these require more bandwidth and/or improvements in compression technology to use less bandwidth. Is this even in the cards?

What about more orbital slots? Say something between 70W and 95W?


----------



## bryan27 (Apr 1, 2002)

There are no more slots for US use. There are available DBS slots between 70-95w but they belong to other countries. Using those slots for US use may cause harmful interference to existing slots.

The only way to get more space is to do what E* is doing and start using KU-FSS slots such as 105 & 121w


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Other Countires? I assume Latin America or eastern Canada?

Spot-Beams could help open up those slots, no? But that would mean the existing occupants at 70-95W would have to get them as well. $$ for new satellites.

WHy can't spot


bryan27 said:


> There are no more slots for US use. There are available DBS slots between 70-95w but they belong to other countries. Using those slots for US use may cause harmful interference to existing slots.
> 
> The only way to get more space is to do what E* is doing and start using KU-FSS slots such as 105 & 121w


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Additional spot-beam satellites and up-link centers can provide more space for additional locals, KU-FSS band satellites can and are being used for HDTV, additional International channels and even more locals.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tkrandall said:


> Spot-Beams could help open up those slots, no? But that would mean the existing occupants at 70-95W would have to get them as well. $$ for new satellites.[/'quote]
> 
> 
> Chris Freeland said:
> ...


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

82W and 91W would be even higher in the sky for the easterns time zone. That would be nice.

Concerning national channels (ESPN, CNN, CartoonNetwork,...), it seems like there is a lot of unnecessary (OK, undesirable) use of bandwidth so that each provider can provide the same channel. (for example ESPN takes up a D* and an E* channel). Given the lack of bandwith and need for growth, it seems that may have to eventually change.

I realize not everyone can see all 3 current U.S. locations: 101w, 110w, and 119w, but a whole lot of bandwidth that could be used for picture quality is instead eaten up with the current D*/E* set-up.

Seems the U.S and Canadian providers would benefit by partnering up on the operational/technical side to move to a more common platform and figure out a better way to share bandwidth and orbital transponder locations. (82, 91, 101, 110, 119) Their costs would go down. Product differentiation could be maintained through programming packages, equipment distribution, exclusive channels, etc. But for the truly common channels, the customer would not need to know nor care that the same signal he is seeing on D* might be the same as another provider used.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

I liked the idea of Locals sharing between D* and E* as Locals seem to be the highest bandwidth constraint that the DSS providers face. Plus, if there are locals in every DMA, then they could include locals in every package as a base service like cable does. 
I think that would make the most financial sense, as adding every DMA's locals would increase the size of the "pie" (pool of possible DBS customers)
Baring LIL sharing, I think they should of made a truce, and agreen to only dually brodcast the top 50 DMA's, then split the rest 50/50. so total bandwidth would not be too wasted.


----------



## smk (Oct 9, 2003)

What about utilizing co-location of additional satellites within existing orbital slots?


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

Or they could try running wires to everybody's house.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Isn't there a 157 slot available that is available for US use?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

smk said:


> What about utilizing co-location of additional satellites within existing orbital slots?


Not possible.

The DBS frequency set is covered by 32 transponders in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz range. Transponders cannot be added, because they would no longer be within the DBS band.

The FSS band that Echostar is using I believe is from the 11.2 to 11.7 GHz range. The uplink frequency for DBS is between the two mentioned bands.


----------



## bryan27 (Apr 1, 2002)

Greg,

Thank's running this radio station has taken much time and there isn't time for play  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the slots for other countries could be for spots in the US, but there are many obsticals. 
1. You have to get permission from the country which owns the slot
2. You have to make sure that your spot isn't going to cause interference to existing US, Can, and Mex slots.
3. You have to get permission from the FCC.

Getting permission from the host country isn't going to be easy as most of the slots between 70-95w are for Carribean Countries and all of those slots are split between the countries. Like Greg, I no longer have the list of what country has what slot, but the Carribbean and Central America slots are a nightmare if one wants it for US use. I remember a slot that looked something like this:

1,3,5------------Grenada
2,4,6------------Trinidad
7,9,11----------Montserat
8,10,12--------Aruba
13-31 ODD---Haiti
14-32 EVEN-Dominican Republic

I really don't think E* or D* wants to negotiate with 6 countries, which will probably each have a different demand (IE: Money or Require Service) just to use a slot, and probably wouldn't be cost effective.

Then there is the issue of Flipped Polarity. Most of the slots for the Carribbean and Central America are closer than 9 degrees to the US and CAN slots. Do avoid interference with US and CAN DBS slots instead of 1-31 ODD as Right Polarization and 2-32 EVEN as Left Polarization they are assigned 1-31 ODD as Left and 2-32 EVEN. To use these slots in the US would require a larger dish (to combat adjacent satellite interference) and an LNB fitted with a servo motor to filp the polarity as you change slots. If you had to go this root you would be better off just getting a regular C-Band or Dual C/KU Band set up, which totally defeats the purpose of DBS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark, 

Yes 157 is available for US use E* has 3 TPs and a satellite there. However, there are restrictions for these slots. 148, 157, 166, 175 must all service AK/HI. 148 is useless for the Eastern half of the US. 157 and 166 can only service OR,WA,CA,AK,&HI. 175 can only service AK,HI,MP,GU,& AS (though I think the FCC will waive AK/HI for this slot if someone wants to just service MP,GU, & AS).


----------



## Big Bob (May 13, 2002)

Here is a list of current satellites, fwiw
http://www.lyngsat.com/america.shtml

I wonder why E or D* couldn't make a deal with another country to share it's slot using the new spot beam technology.

for example, make a deal with Brazil or Mexico where the American company pays for the construction and launch of a satellite that has really big spot beams pointed at the other country and the US. The other country would only have to pay for it's portion of the satellite.

Would't that work?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Big Bob said:


> Here is a list of current satellites, fwiw
> I wonder why E or D* couldn't make ...CC allows and the bandwidth is needed ...
> JL


----------

