# FCC Ponders DBS Satellite Spacing Issues



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

The Federal Communications Commission is taking up the issue of spacing between DBS satellites and whether spacecraft can be placed together in closer orbital slots.

On Wednesday, the FCC's International Bureau said it would take comments on proposals to permit closer orbital spacing between DBS satellites. At the moment, U.S. DBS satellites are spaced nine degrees apart, in core locations at 101 degrees, 110 degrees and 119 degrees.

Two companies have asked the FCC to consider specific proposals to allow satellites to operate in closer orbital slots:

*SES Americom asked for a ruling to serve the U.S. market using BSS (broadcast satellite service) spectrum from the 105.5-degree orbital location. SES wants to use the location to deliver wholesale satellite TV services to the United States, and has a deal in place with EchoStar for utilization of the slot.

*EchoStar has applied for authority to construct, launch and operate DBS satellite assets in the 12.2-12.7 GHz (high-power Ku-Band frequency) and 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency bands at 123.5 degrees, 96.5 degrees and 86.5 degrees, the FCC said. The applications were filed in June, though they have not yet been accepted for filing at the FCC.

Also, DirecTV has a petition for a rulemaking on the feasibility of reduced orbital spacing, the FCC said.

In its request for comments, the FCC's International Bureau said reduced orbital spacing would increase capacity for DBS services, which could lead to expanded programming such as more local-into-local, additional high-definition TV and interactive service offerings.

"While we have reached no conclusions, tentative or otherwise, regarding DBS orbital locations with less than nine degree spacing, our commitment to encourage the intensive and efficient use of spectrum and to encourage competition and broadband deployment motivates us to inquire further into the possibility of implementing reduced orbital spacing for new and/or expanded services," the bureau said.

http://www.skyreport.com (used with permission)


----------



## John Hodgson (Mar 28, 2002)

Here's some more info that John H posted this morning on the same subject.

Report No: SPB-196 Released: 12/16/2003. INTERNATIONAL BUREAU SEEKS
COMMENT ON PROPOSALS TO PERMIT REDUCING ORBITAL SPACINGS BETWEEN UNITED
STATES DIRECT BROADCAST SATELLITES. (DA No. 03-3903). Comments Due:
01/23/2004. Reply Comments Due: 02/13/2004. IB. Contact: Selina Khan
at (202) 418-7282, Technical questions: Kathyrn Medley at (202)
418-1211, ITU questions: Rockie Patterson at (202) 418-1183

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3903A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3903A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3903A1.txt


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

How many LNB's and what size will are dishes be if the FCC ultimately approves this?


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

And will the DBS provider give you a new dish if it is needed?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chris Freeland said:


> How many LNB's and what size will are dishes be if the FCC ultimately approves this?


Probably three, although it depends on what they put on the extra birds - if E* even ends up with the licenses for them. (That is not guaranteed. It is VERY possible that IF the FCC allows DBS use at those slots that they will go to the highest bidder in an auction. E*'s applications are technically invalid since there is no DBS service at those locations. Creating those DBS slots will not make prior filed applications valid.)
I expect the dish to be a little bigger since the LNBs will have to be closer together or further from the center of the dish to catch three or more focal points.



jdspencer said:


> And will the DBS provider give you a new dish if it is needed?


I'd call that a given since E* tends to be doing that now with wing dishes and SuperDish. Make a committment and get a dish.

JL


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

justalurker said:


> Probably three, although it depends on what they put on the extra birds - if E* even ends up with the licenses for them. (That is not guaranteed. It is VERY possible that IF the FCC allows DBS use at those slots that they will go to the highest bidder in an auction. E*'s applications are technically invalid since there is no DBS service at those locations. Creating those DBS slots will not make prior filed applications valid.)
> I expect the dish to be a little bigger since the LNBs will have to be closer together or further from the center of the dish to catch three or more focal points.
> 
> I'd call that a given since E* tends to be doing that now with wing dishes and SuperDish. Make a committment and get a dish.
> ...


I agree that this is a long way from being approved and if it is who knows how the new slots will be allocated. The reason for doing this would be to allow D* and E* additional bandwidth to do additional locals possibly in HD, Broadband and even the smallest local markets. If E* did receive all or part of 123.5 and SES were allowed to use 105.5 in the US, according to reports SES already has an agreement with E* to lease some of those TP's, it is conceivable that a 4 slot dish might be required by some E* subs, for 105.5/110/119/123.5. Since these 4 slots are all DBS, this should allow for this dish to be much smaller then the SuperDish but perhaps only slightly larger then the Dish500.

If the FCC decides to do this for the above reasons these slot could be distributed according to who owns what by the nearest slot. Since E* owns 21 TP's at 119 and D* owns 11, 123.5 could be split the same way. Since E* owns 29 TP's at 110 and D* owns 3, 114.5 could be split the same. Since SES technically already owns the DBS wrights to 105.5, they would get all 32 TP's their and since D* owns all 32 TP's at 101, they would get all 32 TP's at 96.5.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chris Freeland said:


> If the FCC decides to do this for the above reasons these slot could be distributed according to who owns what by the nearest slot.


 Don't forget that this is the FCC in the auction era. Congress changed it so licenses are granted to the highest bidder in most services. The FCC doesn't have permission to do otherwise.

JL


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

justalurker said:


> Don't forget that this is the FCC in the auction era. Congress changed it so licenses are granted to the highest bidder in most services. The FCC doesn't have permission to do otherwise.
> 
> JL


True, however if the FCC decides that this is technically feasible, Congress may allow the FCC to assign these new slots to E* and D* to help facilitate broadband and locals for rural subs, in fact it will likely come with a stipulation that E* and D* provides local and broadband service to all 210 dma's by a certain date in order to receive the extra bandwidth.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Well in many of these cases the FCC cannot auction them because the orbital slots belong to other countries, and already have companies with satellites operating there. It is the right to broadcast into the US from those other slots that is the question. I do not see them being able to auction them off.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That is the bigger issue as well. The ITU will have to sign off on these short spaced slots. You can't just make a slot DBS.

Grabbing a foreign DBS and allowing it to hit the US (for example, getting Canadian DBS slots and using them in the southern US or Hawaii, or Mexican slots in the northern US and Alaska/Canada) would be a different issue. They are already DBS slots, but one STILL has to get ITU permission to vary the international plan.

JL


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Lets just hope that the providers, Dish and DirectV don't get in the position of sending us back to the good old days with all these different satellites they keep launching. 10 to 12 foot motorized Dishes to change to different sats. Sometimes you have to wonder with all the different slots Dish has if it wouldn't be easier just to motorize the one large Super Dish and move to the different Sats. Just a question I had in mind. Remember the one Dish solution they wanted everyone to have and to move forward. Dish now has what 5 or 6 Sats up there now and going to launch more. Before any of you get on the band wagon, I am a Dish customer and I like my Dish setup. Just thinking out loud. Are we really going forward or backward? Some people do not want 2 or 3 Dishes sticking up off there roof or back yard.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

There is a flaw in your assumption. To most people, DBS receivers are just another cable box as far as they care. A movable dish is impossible with two or more receivers. IIRC, there was only one TV channel per transponder on C-band, and limit of 24 transponders, plus there were additional audio channels. C-band was also designed for content delivery from the channel origin to the destination, and was NOT designed for consumers. 

There are dishes designed to look at multiple locations, including one where I saw a demonstration video which was looking at FIVE different asian DBS satellites. That dish would not work with Dish Network since the 61.5 and 148 locations are too far off the 110/119 locations. 

Who knows? Can a Ku and a Ks satellite occupy the same location?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

There would be no need to have 61.5 and 148 on the same dish anyways since both cannot be picked up at one location for the most part and made for the east/west coast.


----------



## xxxx (May 25, 2002)

justalurker said:


> That is the bigger issue as well. The ITU will have to sign off on these short spaced slots. You can't just make a slot DBS.
> 
> JL


Yes both Canada and Mexico have to agree to any changes. I bet the US will have a tough time dealing with them since both feel screwed by the US in the C + Ku band assignments.

Mexico has no interest in DBS. They have developed a good relationship with Canada in coordinating the 107 to 118 C/ku band slots. So they would probably agree to do whatever Canada wanted.


----------

