# Is it true DTV has more satellites than dish?



## wegotdatwood (Jul 25, 2012)

I originally signed up with Dish (blindly not knowing anything) and they came out to set it up and a tree branch was in the way. They said they couldn't install, so I called to cancel.

DTV came out after I called them and they could. The teach said DTV has 7 and Dish has 3 satellites. 

Was he telling the truth? or full of crap?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Dish has more than 3 satellites, they are just located in different directions. Apparently the tree branch wasnt in the way of the DirecTv satellites.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

DIRECTV currently has 11 satellites in operation, 5 Ka band and 6 Ku.

Though the status of 1 Ku one, old DIRECTV 1R at 110w, is not active and was initially headed for disposal, but is now in the process of being transfered to another service.

Not sure about dish, but according to the EKB they own or lease space on some 14 satellites divided among two (Eastern and Western) orbital arcs.

http://www.dishuser.org/satellites.php


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

I think the technician might be confusing satellites with slots. The "slot" is longitude at which the satellites are parked. There can be more than one satellite in the same slot.

With DirecTV, one dish can receive the signal from the 99, 101, 103, 110, and 119 slot. As has been previously posted, the DirecTV satellite in the 110 slot is not being used at the moment. Some west cost locals, a few music channels, and some foreign language channels come from the 119 slot, but the vast majority of DirecTV subscribers only need to be able to see the 99, 101, and 103 slots.

I am not as familiar with the location of the Dish satellites. It is likely that the tree that blocked line of sight to the Dish slot is not blocking the DirecTV slots.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Couple of things:
110 is still broadcasting, but who knows what.

The SAT count isn't as important as the transponder count.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Using Lynsat for echostar:
61.5º 17 tps
72.7º 32 tps
77º 7 tps
110º 29 tps
119º 21 tps
121º 6 tps
129º 32 tps

144 total

Using my DirecTV receiver:

99º 30 tps
101º 32 tps
103º 46 tps
119º 11 tps

119 total

Feel free to add more to this.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Dish also has sats at 72.7 (32 tps), 118.7 & 129 (32 tps).

For the common Dish customer they will use either 61, 72.7 & 77 or 110, 119 & 129 to get all of their programming. 118.7 is used for international programming.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Dish also has sats at 72.7, 118.7 & 129.


72.7º 32 tps
118.7º is grouped in 119º
129º 32 tps


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

HobbyTalk said:


> Dish also has sats at 72.7 (32 tps), 118.7 & 129 (32 tps).
> 
> For the common Dish customer they will use either 61, 72.7 & 77 or 110, 119 & 129 to get all of their programming. 118.7 is used for international programming.


Yes, with Dish you have an eastern arc and a western arc. Typically a Dish customer only gets service from one of the arcs.

And, as noted before, the majority of DirecTV customers only get service from 99, 101 and 103.

Both companies also offer private channels for business use. So you can't really do any valid comparison of the two based on the number of satellites in orbit, or even the number of orbital slots used (regardless of how many satellites are at a given slot).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Now for the usefulness of these:

61.5º has an EL of about 27º in Denver & 14º on the west coast.
72.7º 34º Denver & 22º west coast
77º 37º Denver & 25º west coast

99º 37º west coast & 35º east coast
101º 38º west coast & 35º east coast
103º 39º west coast & 34º east coast
110º 30º east coast
119º 24º east coast

121º 23º east coast
129º 38º Denver & 18º east coast

61.5º, 72.7º, & [maybe] 77º, need to be repeated on 121º & 129º


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

International programing is a bit of a wildcard, as I didn't count the 95º SAT, but DirecTV uses 119º for some of it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> DIRECTV currently has 11 satellites in operation, 5 Ka band and 6 Ku.
> 
> *Though the status of 1 Ku one, old DIRECTV 1R at 110w, is not active and was initially headed for disposal, but is now in the process of being transfered to another service.*
> 
> ...





veryoldschool said:


> Couple of things:
> 110 is still broadcasting, but who knows what.
> 
> The SAT count isn't as important as the transponder count.


To clarify;

I was referring to DIRECTV-1R at its present relocation of 110w since relieved of its duties of providing local channel service at 72.5w, is inactive and was initially to serve as a backup to the active though unused at the moment, DIRECTV-5 (Tempo-1).

However, later DIRECTV apparently changed their mind and filed for D1R's disposal. Now DIRECTV has postponed that plan and filed for an additional STA to allow time for negotiation with an unspecified firm for its transfer to them for some other unknown service.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Using Lynsat for echostar:
> 61.5º 17 tps
> 72.7º 32 tps
> 77º 7 tps
> ...


Could you translate this into channel count.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> Could you translate this into channel count.


That gets much harder.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Transponder counting isn't prefect either if the Ka are wider bandwidth than the Ku. Am I correct.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Christopher Gould said:


> Transponder counting isn't prefect either if the Ka are wider bandwidth than the Ku. Am I correct.


Right, not much of this is "perfect".
The spaceways have large bandwidth TPs, but the others "I think" are very close in bandwidth [in MHz].


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

yosoyellobo said:


> Could you translate this into channel count.


It's like saying.... "Dish has 7 buses and DirecTV has 5 buses". But, Dish may have 7 buses that can carry 30 passengers, where DirecTV has 5 buses that can carry 45, giving DirecTV the ability to carry 15 more passengers.

What the load is on each satellite, and what its capacity is, is a whole different ballgame. There are a few topics in both the Dish and DirecTV forums that try to analyze what is happening with all the satellites.

Both companies can carry thousands of HD channels, but 80% of those are configured on local spot beams for local market channels.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

maartena said:


> It's like saying.... "Dish has 7 buses and DirecTV has 5 buses". But, Dish may have 7 buses that can carry 30 passengers, where DirecTV has 5 buses that can carry 45, giving DirecTV the ability to carry 15 more passengers.
> 
> What the load is on each satellite, and what its capacity is, is a whole different ballgame. There are a few topics in both the Dish and DirecTV forums that try to analyze what is happening with all the satellites.
> 
> Both companies can carry thousands of HD channels, but 80% of those are configured on local spot beams for local market channels.


...and 80% (or more) are not worth watching, so it makes the whole numbers game downright silly, if not irrelevant. 

The real issue is which service carries the "must have" or majority of "want to watch" channels. Whose bus is bigger or has more seats, or bigger seats actually counts for next to nothing.

It's all about content, not quantity, so the channel count/transponder count/bandwidth stuff is, for the most part a red herring. (although a discussion of bandwidth vs quality of picture can be a meaningful discussion)

Of course, this is all nothing more than my opinion, but it struck me as funny that consumers can be impressed by raw numbers, losing sight of the fact garbage in = garbage out, no matter how many cans might be available.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Yeah. Trying to make any comparison based on sats or orbital slots or tps is gonna fail. As has already been mentioned Dish basically has 2 set of sats with the majority of the programing duplicated on both sets. Locals, international channels and some small interest channels are only on one arc or the other.

Also as has been pointed out DirecTV's KA tps are wider then the standard KU tp and actually have 2 different widths in use. The spaceway tp's are 68mhz if memory serves and the d10/11/12 tps are 40mhz while ku tps are 32mhz.

Beyond that you have to consider the encoding type, amount of FEC (forward error correction) and Symbol rate to finally end up with an actual usable bandwidth for the provided video.

Ultimately at thing point I think both providers have enough HD to have the majority of what most people want in HD. Individual interests may make one better than the other for some people but both should be sufficient for most.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

evan_s said:


> ... Also as has been pointed out DirecTV's KA tps are wider then the standard KU tp and actually have 2 different widths in use. The spaceway tp's are 68mhz if memory serves and the d10/11/12 tps are 40mhz while ku tps are 32mhz. ...


To note:

The Spaceway Tp. bandwidth is 62.5 MHz, D10-12 is 36 MHz ± 2 MHz guard band and Ku is 24 MHz.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> To note:
> 
> The Spaceway Tp. bandwidth is 62.5 MHz, D10-12 is 36 MHz ± 2 MHz guard band and Ku is 24 MHz.


Thanks. I was a bit off I guess =)


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Now for the usefulness of these:
> 
> 61.5º has an EL of about 27º in Denver & 14º on the west coast.
> 72.7º 34º Denver & 22º west coast
> ...


Generally those east of the Mississippi use 61.5, 72.7 and 77. Those west of the Mississippi use 110, 119, 129. All Dish national programming is available on each set of 3 sats. Where your LiLs are is what arc you would use.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

To the OP's point, I hesitate to say the installer was lying - let's just say he was misinformed.

Because the DirecTV and Dish satellites are at different locations in the sky there will be locations that can receive service from one provider, but not from the other. In my case, I was a Dish customer for several years, mainly because when I originally switched from cable to satellite a tree across the road from my house blocked the DirecTV slot. Later, when DirecTV released the original TiVo DVRs in 2001, that tree had been knocked down in a storm and I was able to switch.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 110 is still broadcasting, but who knows what.


If the broadcasting isn't "in the public interest", it doesn't really matter.


> The SAT count isn't as important as the transponder count.


DIRECTV has at least two small complements of transponder capability (RB1 and RB2-A) that can't effectively be used to broadcast conventional programming and four transponders at 110W that they choose not to use for same. Transponders don't translate directly to channels you can watch and ultimately it is the variety of programming that counts, isn't it?

Generally speaking, installers know how many slots they need to hit and not how many satellites, transponders or channels there are. Long-timers may know, but it certainly isn't a requirement.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

maartena said:


> It's like saying.... "Dish has 7 buses and DirecTV has 5 buses". But, Dish may have 7 buses that can carry 30 passengers, where DirecTV has 5 buses that can carry 45, giving DirecTV the ability to carry 15 more passengers.


While a pretty apt analogy, rows on an airplane might be better. With respect to HD programming, DIRECTV has six seats (channels) in each row (transponder) and DISH has 8 seats and 33-50% more rows.

DIRECTV 12 has 24 transponders that each carry "up to" six HD channels while Ciel 2 (129W) has 32 transponders that each carry up to eight HD channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The airplane also gives you an idea of how more cramped the Dish "seats" are.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> If the broadcasting isn't "in the public interest", it doesn't really matter.*DIRECTV has at least two small complements of transponder capability (RB1 and RB2-A) that can't effectively be used to broadcast conventional programming and four transponders at 110W that they choose not to use for same.* Transponders don't translate directly to channels you can watch and ultimately it is the variety of programming that counts, isn't it?
> 
> Generally speaking, installers know how many slots they need to hit and not how many satellites, transponders or channels there are. Long-timers may know, but it certainly isn't a requirement.


To note:

"RB-1" doesn't exist yet;

But will be a full CONUS beam Reverse-DBS band payload carried aboard the future D14/RB-1 satellite at 99w scheduled for launch in late 2013 to early 2014. And it will carry conventional programming from 18 transponders.

"RB-2A" is an R-DBS payload aboard D12 at 103w providing 18 transponders to 4 spotbeams for purposes unknown.

The four areas covered by its spotbeams are maybe used as test markets for a final evaluation of nationwide R-DBS service perhaps?

And there are three Ku transponders at 110w (28, 30, and 32) that are apparently preparing to relay HD programming to Puerto Rico.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> The airplane also gives you an idea of how more cramped the Dish "seats" are.


doesn't matter. Dish's HD is still better


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

domingos35 said:


> doesn't matter. Dish's HD is still better


If by better you actually mean worse...then yes! It isn't possible for Dish's HD to beat HD via DirecTV.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

evan_s said:


> Thanks. I was a bit off I guess =)


BOTH of you are WRONG for Ka tpn's bandwidth !

See my posts in respond to VOS request in other thread.

All the thread's buzz with sats/tpn/MHz/channel's count is coming to *aggregate BITRATE* if you want meaningful comparison.

That would be real 'pipe' measure !


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> BOTH of you are WRONG for Ka tpn's bandwidth !
> 
> See my posts in respond to VOS request in other thread.
> 
> ...


Well P. Smith, unless DIRECTV lied to the FCC in their LOA filings, those are the actual Ka transponder bandwidths I quoted. Though for the Spaceways 62.5 MHz only applies to the Ka-hi band in non-processor or "bent-pipe" mode.

However, how efficiently that bandwidth is utilized to provide a given data throughput is another story of course. Beyond just bandwidth, Symbol Rate, FEC, modulation type and level, power output, etc. all play important roles in that area.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> BOTH of you are WRONG for Ka tpn's bandwidth !
> 
> See my posts in respond to VOS request in other thread.
> 
> ...


*USABLE* bitrate is more relevant to the quality of service. But even there, I remember when Dish Network experimented with squeezing down FEC to squeeze one more channel per transponder (and these were SD channels on Ku transponders). It worked...until it rained. The smaller FEC resulted in rainfade starting in lighter precipitation and lasting longer. This was not an improvment in overall customer experience.

So, there is no real "absolute" measure of comparison. If you could compare apples to apples, perhaps there would be. But Dish and DirecTV optimize their service differently - differently enough to make all comparisons relative (or at least approximations).


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

domingos35 said:


> doesn't matter. Dish's HD is still better


Having just switched to Dish, I can say that Dish HD PQ is almost as good as DTV. Overall. ESPN is the same. HBO is almost the same. Locals are not as good.

However, Dish SD PQ is far superior to DTV.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

ATARI said:


> Having just switched to Dish, I can say that Dish HD PQ is almost as good as DTV. Overall. ESPN is the same. HBO is almost the same. Locals are not as good.


Since ESPN HD is a 1280x720p signal I'd guess Dish doesn't need to downrez it like they do with 1080i channels.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> Well P. Smith, unless DIRECTV lied to the FCC in their LOA filings, those are the actual Ka transponder bandwidths I quoted. Though for the Spaceways 62.5 MHz only applies to the Ka-hi band in non-processor or "bent-pipe" mode.
> 
> However, how efficiently that bandwidth is utilized to provide a given data throughput is another story of course. Beyond just bandwidth, Symbol Rate, FEC, modulation type and level, power output, etc. all play important roles in that area.


Unless you did read that FCC docs or at least these quotas what I did in other thread answering to VOS an you (?). 
I have proof of the numbers on Spectrum Analyzer screen. Against insufficient quotas from FCC doc. Would you concur measured real time data ?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Titan25 said:


> But Dish and DirecTV optimize their service differently - differently enough to make all comparisons relative (or at least approximations).


You are diverting the discussion into blurring "optimization" aspect. Before that we must settle major numbers. Comparable numbers.
At least it would common ground to a comparison. As I mentioned everything above is not the numbers to final account; these are just initial parameters to start calculate the total bandwidth on each provider before compare.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Unless you did read that FCC docs or at least these quotas what I did in other thread answering to VOS an you (?).
> I have proof of the numbers on Spectrum Analyzer screen. Against insufficient quotas from FCC doc. Would you concur measured real time data ?


I always go with measured data.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Unless you did read that FCC docs or at least these quotas what I did in other thread answering to VOS an you (?).
> I have proof of the numbers on Spectrum Analyzer screen. Against insufficient quotas from FCC doc. Would you concur measured real time data ?


But I don't see how the measured data rates and other parameters you list in that thread are at odds with the quoted bandwidths I listed.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

36 MHz is real (and by FCC it's one of three values) for DTV's setting of SW-1 and SW-2, your [62.5 MHz] is pure FCC paper's possible value.



HoTat2 said:


> To note:
> 
> *The Spaceway Tp. bandwidth is 62.5 MHz*, D10-12 is 36 MHz ± 2 MHz guard band and Ku is 24 MHz.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> 36 MHz is real (and by FCC it's one of three values) for DTV's setting of SW-1 and SW-2, your [62.5 MHz] is pure FCC paper's possible value.


Well from the Narrative for SW1 and 2 (on p.15 of the SW2 narrative I'm quoting from at the moment):



> ... For non-processor operations, the 19.7-20.2 GHz band can be viewed as supporting eight contiguous 62.5 MHz channels. Multiple channels can be received in a given uplink beam, and these channels can be re-used among uplink beams, subject to the requirement that a minimum re-use distance be maintained between co-frequency/co-polarized beams. Once received, these 62.5 MHz channels can be individually frequency translated to any one of eight contiguous 62.5 MHz downlink channels and routed to specific downlink beams. In the downlink direction, the phased array antenna is capable of producing multiple downlink beams (up to 24 of them) of virtually any shape. The satellite will therefore be operated so as to optimize the downlink coverage in support of the overall traffic being carried. In this mode, the downlink emission designator for the band 19.7-20.2 GHz will be 24M0G7W with an associated allocated bandwidth of 24 MHz. The satellite output filtering for the 19.7-20.2 GHz band for non-processor operations is shown in Appendix D, Figure D-4. Note that in this case, the satellite output filtering is actually performed at baseband, as all received channels are converted to baseband before being upconverted to their final output frequency.


Also the document refers to three emission designators quoted as:



> ... 24M0G7W, 36M0G7W and 54M0G7W with associated allocated bandwidths of 24 MHz, 36 MHz and 54 MHz, respectively


pertaining to the up/downlinks of the two 165 MHz wide-band transponders the SWs use on Ka-lo Band for backhauling purposes.

Are you sure you are not confusing those with the Ka-hi band used by subscribers?

As quoted above only one bandwidth 62.5 MHz and designator 24M0G7W is listed for those available to customers.

And I admit is a bit confusing since for a 62.5 MHz bandwidth only a 24 MHz wide transmission is stated as being supported by it?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Are you sure you are not confusing...


When you're tapping into the LNB output with a spectrum analyzer, you don't get that confused.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> When you're tapping into the LNB output with a spectrum analyzer, you don't get that confused.


That's how I got the number - 36 MHz - last time.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

RAD said:


> Since ESPN HD is a 1280x720p signal I'd guess Dish doesn't need to downrez it like they do with 1080i channels.


 Are you saying that Dish only sends out 720P? I thought that all providers send out resolutions as they are.



ATARI said:


> Having just switched to Dish, I can say that Dish HD PQ is almost as good as DTV. Overall. ESPN is the same. HBO is almost the same. Locals are not as good.
> 
> However, Dish SD PQ is far superior to DTV.


One of the arguments is that Dish uses MPEG2 and D* uses MPEG4 and that's why D*'s HD is somewhat better. In checking out Blue Ray, some studios use MPEG2 and some use MPEG4. However, MPEG2 does not handle low bit rates well, therefore it is necessary to use a higher bit rate. MPEG4 can handle lower bit rates much better, so I guess that's why sometimes we see lower bit rates on some blue rays, and high on others, and why some blue rays are not as good as others.

If anyone knows, how does that work in relation to Dish and D* and or the broadcasters concerning HD and SD? Do the SAT companies tweak the bitrates, where dish uses a higher bit rate then D* making SD better on dish?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

n3vino said:


> Are you saying that Dish only sends out 720P? I thought that all providers send out resolutions as they are.


No, only saying that Dish and DIRECTV ESPN HD might look the same since it's a 720p channel and Dish doesn't need to downrez it like they do with 1080i (1920x180i downrez to 1440x1080i).


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

n3vino said:


> One of the arguments is that Dish uses MPEG2 and D* uses MPEG4 and that's why D*'s HD is somewhat better.


All of Dish's programming on the eastern arc sats is MPG4.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> All the thread's buzz with sats/tpn/MHz/channel's count is coming to *aggregate BITRATE* if you want meaningful comparison.


When you post data regarding aggregate bitrate, we can discuss it. If the information isn't available, bringing it up only muddies the water.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Everything is posted - take it. Compare, do your meaningful analysis.
See James Long site, Sixto data, gct's posts (use my info too) - all sat/tpns has known modulation, SR, FEC to calculate bandwidth for each tpn and whole fleet for each provider.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

To add to HobbyTalk's reply.

Both services have Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 channels.
Most DirecTv SD channels are Mpeg 2.

DishNetworks Western Arc SD is Mpeg 2 and their Eastern Arc SD is all Mpeg4
Both services HD is Mpeg4

Or to put it another way dishnetwork is also ahead of DirecTV on going to all MPeg4 since that is all they have on their eastern Arc.

Is that clear enough?
TB



n3vino said:


> Are you saying that Dish only sends out 720P? I thought that all providers send out resolutions as they are.
> 
> One of the arguments is that Dish uses MPEG2 and D* uses MPEG4 and that's why D*'s HD is somewhat better. In checking out Blue Ray, some studios use MPEG2 and some use MPEG4. However, MPEG2 does not handle low bit rates well, therefore it is necessary to use a higher bit rate. MPEG4 can handle lower bit rates much better, so I guess that's why sometimes we see lower bit rates on some blue rays, and high on others, and why some blue rays are not as good as others.
> 
> If anyone knows, how does that work in relation to Dish and D* and or the broadcasters concerning HD and SD? Do the SAT companies tweak the bitrates, where dish uses a higher bit rate then D* making SD better on dish?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Add to that 'cloud' of info - some channels (regardless of a provider) sourced as 720p.
DTV is doing downres SD to 352x480 ... Bandwidth of many channels dynamically changing three/four folds sometimes...
A lot of aspects to consider.

But let me repeat again - one base is valid to compare the two providers' sat fleet - *total bandwidth*. The "pipe" size.
When you get the number, then you could go up with efficiency of using it for each provider including compression algos, resolution, bandwidth of each channel, statmux compression, etc


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Everything is posted - take it. Compare, do your meaningful analysis.


I can't recall seeing average bitrates for individual channels much less aggregate bitrates for transponders. Can you assemble the data in table form so that an apples-to-apples comparison can be done?

I still think you're confusing the issue by demanding compilation and analysis of data that isn't readily available.

Do you know whether the multiplexers employed necessarily use all available bandwidth all the time?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I can't recall


Maybe you should stop right here and call yourself ahead.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

n3vino said:


> Are you saying that Dish only sends out 720P? I thought that all providers send out resolutions as they are.


Last I saw dish sent all 1080i content as 1440x1080i instead of 1920x1080i. Allows them to use less bandwidth with out getting too many compression artifacts but does add some softness to the image.

As has been mentioned DirecTV and dish both uses MPEG4 for all their HD at this point.

Verizon uses mpeg2 for HD and passes all the OTA channels as is with out doing any recompressing or rate shaping.

Comcast and other cable companies use mpeg 2 HD but recompress it or use rate shaping to fit 3 channels per QAM channel instead of 2.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> I can't recall seeing average bitrates for individual channels much less aggregate bitrates for transponders. Can you assemble the data in table form so that an apples-to-apples comparison can be done?
> 
> I still think you're confusing the issue by demanding compilation and analysis of data that isn't readily available.
> 
> Do you know whether the multiplexers employed necessarily use all available bandwidth all the time?


*Can you assemble the data in table form so that an apples-to-apples comparison can be done?*


> Everything is posted - take it. Compare, do your meaningful analysis.
> See James Long site, Sixto data, gct's posts (use my info too) - all sat/tpns has known modulation, SR, FEC to calculate bandwidth for each tpn and whole fleet for each provider.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> But let me repeat again - one base is valid to compare the two providers' sat fleet - *total bandwidth*. The "pipe" size.


Perhaps ... but with DISH operating parallel systems one basically would be comparing three fleets.

The "what do they do with that bandwidth" question makes it much more complicated. Even beyond converting the potential pipe size to current pipe size and dividing it by current data rates. Much of the argument comes down to the choices DISH and DirecTV have made as to what to stick in that pipe. "Basic channels" "sports channels" "premium channels" "PPV". How much space is available and how much more could be put to use can be an interesting technical discussion, but what is done with the space is what most people care about.

Yes, I can tell you that a particular transponder is 8PSK using a signal rate of 21500 and 2/3 FEC ... and math can tell how many bits that is. But the raw number of bits available does not tell anyone how it is used to serve customers the content they desire. And whether or not the customers are served is what most customers care about.

That and whether or not their dish can be mounted where it can see the satellites required.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

> but what is done with the space is what most people care about.


That would be valid discussion only when we establish the base - 'pipeline(s)' size, first.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> That would be valid discussion only when we establish the base - 'pipeline(s)' size, first.


I disagree. The content people care about has been a valid ongoing discussion on this site for many years and will continue to be so (in appropriate threads).

One does not need to know the pipe size to know if a service meets the customer's needs. The pipe size is a good excuse for NOT meeting the customer's needs - but an excuse is an excuse, not a substitution for meeting a customer's needs. (In other words ... if a customer complains about channel XXY not being carried the pipe size could be used as an excuse for channel XXY not being carried but it doesn't satisfy the "need" for channel XXY.)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Actually, we are benting the discussion in our own but different directions... See post #1.

I think my deviation in the discussion got an influence by post#15 ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Actually, we are benting the discussion in our own but different directions... See post #1.


I did ... it was basically a LOS complaint with an incorrect answer given by an installer. (It isn't the number of satellites that count, but where they are located - and whether a location on the ground can be found to serve a particular customer.)



> I think my deviation in the discussion got an influence by post#15 ...


Actually post #5: "The SAT count isn't as important as the transponder count."

Still a little off as it is the satellite location that really matters when it comes to LOS. (And the licensed/leased transponder counts that followed are off as well.)

Bit counting can be fun ... but there are much bigger influences.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

James Long said:


> Actually post #5: "The SAT count isn't as important as the transponder count."


Since that looks like mine,

"The point" was that counting SATs [at one location] wasn't as important as how many tps are being used, from that location.

Now you've just wondered off to the "how many channels" direction which wasn't in the first post.

Hey I've got 10000000 channels and all but four, are the home shopping channels WooHoo


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"TBoneit" said:


> To add to HobbyTalk's reply.
> 
> Both services have Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 channels.
> Most DirecTv SD channels are Mpeg 2.
> ...


I wouldn't say either is really ahead of the other in moving to all mpeg4. Does dish have an sd and an Hi Definition feed of some channels on the eastern arc? If so, going all mpeg4 hasn't gained them anything meaningful in bandwidth (except maybe a little better pq for sd) because they haven't gone all Hi Definition equipment that can down res for non Hi Definition customers. That's when they will be able to move ahead and save bandwidth, and eliminate all dupe channels. Or have they done that already? Of course, since they also have to duplicate everything on two separate arcs, they have a more difficult road overall, but have an easier road for getting at least half the nation to all Hi Definition equipment.

Of course, then adding the bandwidth, they could choose to either go full res ( as they should do) or adding more channels, but then realize the east and west may have different channels, which could be confusing to some.

Both companies face difficult Decisions on when it makes sense and how to move people to all Hi Definition mpeg4 equipment that eventually will free up more bandwidth for them. And the path for each company is likely to be a bit different.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Counting SATs:
Do you count locations?
Do you count SATs clustered at the same location?
Or do you simply count useful tps, their bandwidth, "and then" get down to channel counts?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"James Long" said:


> Perhaps ... but with DISH operating parallel systems one basically would be comparing three fleets.
> 
> The "what do they do with that bandwidth" question makes it much more complicated. Even beyond converting the potential pipe size to current pipe size and dividing it by current data rates. Much of the argument comes down to the choices DISH and DirecTV have made as to what to stick in that pipe. "Basic channels" "sports channels" "premium channels" "PPV". How much space is available and how much more could be put to use can be an interesting technical discussion, but what is done with the space is what most people care about.
> 
> ...


Is dish still broadcasting separate sd and Hi Definition versions of channels on the eastern arc?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"veryoldschool" said:


> Counting SATs:
> Do you count locations?
> Do you count SATs clustered at the same location?
> Or do you simply count useful tps, their bandwidth, "and then" get down to channel counts?


Really, I would think the important thing to count is how many transponders they can use, and how many channels they can get on all those, to get theoretical amount of channels they can put up, and then count to see how many channels they actually broadcast. Other than those two things, does anything else matter at the end point? What they have, and what they can add... Of course, we will never know for sure the actual can add numbers for either company, because we will never know all the details and capabilities. Just look at how now DIRECTV is having six channels a transponder on some satelites.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> Now you've just wondered off to the "how many channels" direction which wasn't in the first post.


Actually, in relationship to the first post my last post summed up the answer:
_It isn't the number of satellites that count, but where they are located - and whether a location on the ground can be found to serve a particular customer._

I don't believe I have mentioned channel count here ... only opposition to using bit counting as the start of a comparison.



> Hey I've got 10000000 channels and all but four, are the home shopping channels WooHoo


Fortunately no provider is like that and no one would take that as a serious comment. Content matters.



veryoldschool said:


> Counting SATs:
> Do you count locations?
> Do you count SATs clustered at the same location?
> Or do you simply count useful tps, their bandwidth, "and then" get down to channel counts?


Transponders is a good level to start at ... if one must compare at a technical level beyond what most customers would care about. But does saying one provider has their transponders configured to transmit 3.1 trillion bits of information vs the other provider having their transponders configured to transmit 3.2 trillion really make a difference?

Customer satisfaction isn't defined by the capacity for bits of information. It is defined by how those bits are used.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Is dish still broadcasting separate sd and Hi Definition versions of channels on the eastern arc?


Yes ... except for locals where the SD is pulled when a HD version is added.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"James Long" said:


> Yes ... except for locals where the SD is pulled when a HD version is added.


Wait, does all their mpeg4 equipment pick up Hi Definition feeds and have the ability to down covert for sd customers? If so, why on earth do they have the dupes?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Wait, does all their mpeg4 equipment pick up Hi Definition feeds and have the ability to down covert for sd customers? If so, why on earth do they have the dupes?


DISH only knows for sure. There may be contractual issues or differences between the feeds (such as logos and popups) that the providers want to keep separate. A lot of SD channels are now simple center crops or letterboxes of the newer HD feeds and the receivers all have SD outputs. But providers have their wishes.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> Really,* I would think the important thing to count is how many transponders they can use,* and how many channels they can get on all those, to get theoretical amount of channels they can put up, and then count to see how many channels they actually broadcast. Other than those two things, does anything else matter at the end point? What they have, and what they can add... Of course, we will never know for sure the actual can add numbers for either company, because we will never know all the details and capabilities. Just look at how now DIRECTV is having six channels a transponder on some satelites.


You can't count transponders as-is for start counting channels. All of them have different "pipesize" what is exactly a base for start conting channels.
Sats and tpns are VERY VERY rough estimation - to much variations between different sats for just one provider [DTV Ku and Ka] to use them as-is.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Wait, does all their mpeg4 equipment pick up Hi Definition feeds and have the ability to down covert for sd customers? If so, why on earth do they have the dupes?


The only receivers that can be installed on the eastern arc are the VIP (or better) receivers. All of them do HD. I suppose a lot of SD customers complain when their programming is letterboxed on their 4:3 screens when HD programming is displayed on an SD TV. Heck people complain that some broadcasts just crop their HD programming for SD instead of pan and scan. You can't please them all


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

> are the VIP (or better) receivers


 - mean ViP and XiP


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

James Long said:


> Actually, in relationship to the first post my last post summed up the answer:
> _It isn't the number of satellites that count, but where they are located - and whether a location on the ground can be found to serve a particular customer._


 maybe you saw.read more into the first post than I, but location(s) didn't seem to be the question.



> I don't believe I have mentioned channel count here ... only opposition to using bit counting as the start of a comparison.
> 
> Fortunately no provider is like that and no one would take that as a serious comment. Content matters.


 You seemed to go this direction, but channels that customers wanted was what was important, so my billion home shopping channels was meant as a joke [aka not to be taken seriouly].



> Transponders is a good level to start at ...


 which was all I was suggesting.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just one example what would rain on your parade: you can't count together Ka tpn DVB-S2|8PSK|30 Msps|3/4 and Ku tpn DSS|QPSK|20 Msps|6/7.

Technical (OK, scientific) way to get start - get common denominator. It should be a bandwidth: XX and YY Mbps.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Just one example what would rain on your parade: you can't count together Ka tpn DVB-S2|8PSK|30 Msps|3/4 and Ku tpn DSS|QPSK|20 Msps|6/7.
> 
> Technical (OK, scientific) way to get start - get common denominator. It should be a bandwidth: XX and YY Mbps.


Actually P. Smith, for digital transmission I see the SR (or Baud rate) as the "usual" main parameter determining bandwidth, instead of the bit rate, whether throughput or aggregate, that's being transmitted through it.

For instance in the examples you cite above, irrespective of their differing modulation levels and FEC code rates, the 30 and 20 Msps are both just a few percentage points less than the assigned 36 and 24 MHz bandwidths noted in their official emission designators.

Now as I wrote earlier, there are exceptions to this general rule in some cases as with the Spaceways' stated 62.5 MHz tp. bandwidth (non-processor mode) quoted in the LOA narrative, yet it list an emission designator for them of 24M0G7W which is only a 24 MHz wide transmission.

For an alleged 62.5 MHz tp. bandwidth, I would have "normally" expected an emission designator of around 58M0G7W for it or something.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

P Smith said:


> - mean ViP and XiP


Should have said "newer"


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> You are diverting the discussion into blurring "optimization" aspect. Before that we must settle major numbers. Comparable numbers.
> At least it would common ground to a comparison. As I mentioned everything above is not the numbers to final account; these are just initial parameters to start calculate the total bandwidth on each provider before compare.


But how do you count the numbers?

Dish has duplication of content between their eastern and western arcs, so simply measuring aggregate "pipe size" doesn't work As a point of comparison unless you eliminate the duplicate capacity.

DirecTV has some currently idle capacity (apparently) so should that be included or excluded?

The fundamental question is what are you trying to measure? A theoretical (but I would submit meaningless) measure of aggregate capacity? Or are you trying measure total delivered bandwidth at a given point? Or perhaps total number of channels?

My point is that for each of the possible things you might measure DirecTV will "win" some and Dish will win others. For those that are interested in satellite design the type and number of transponders, the footprints they generate, the encoding and modulation of the signals they transmit and the design of the satellites that carry them may be of concern. I am such a person. However, I simply caution that the differences between the providers in all these areas are simply that - differences. Neither is "better" or "superior", and there are enough variables that making broad generalizations like "who has more capacity" or "more satellites" are decidedly not simple questions to answer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe you should stop right here and call yourself ahead.


You're the only person that I've seen that has offered the per-program information that P Smith says is available (but won't share or link to it). Do you have any of this "aggregate bandwidth" information he refers to?

For some peculiar reason, DIRECTV threads seem to be clogged with posters who refuse to provide reference information in support of their claims. I may have contracted the disease myself.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> You're the only person that I've seen that has offered the per-program information that P Smith says is available (but won't share or link to it). Do you have any of this "aggregate bandwidth" information he refers to?
> 
> For some peculiar reason, DIRECTV threads seem to be clogged with posters who refuse to provide reference information in support of their claims. I may have contracted the disease myself.


That's because they don't see the point in sending dish subs to other threads to join in our conversation there about more DIRECTV the hnical information.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> You're the only person that I've seen that has offered the per-program information that P Smith says is available (but won't share or link to it). Do you have any of this "aggregate bandwidth" information he refers to?
> 
> For some peculiar reason, DIRECTV threads seem to be clogged with posters who refuse to provide reference information in support of their claims. I may have contracted the disease myself.


One of the last was this: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=205621

"I'd say" a significant problem is the information is buried in threads covering 5 years on this forum. While I generally remember the context, digging through threads for links isn't something I'm going to spend a lot of time on.
Even the link I posted, has close to 400 posts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From a DISH side I could provide a table with the current transponder usage and the setup on each of those transponders (or one could look through my website as P Smith suggested and cull those figures themselves). But as I already stated, bits don't tell the whole story. Channel capacity does not tell the whole story. This seems to be another discussion that will end in "agree to disagree" so why spend a lot of time on the math?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> This seems to be another discussion that will end in "agree to disagree" so why spend a lot of time on the math?


P Smith insists that the crucial information is available so that a better understanding might be had by all. Maybe the truth _isn't_ out there after all.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> Even the link I posted, has close to 400 posts.


And much of that centered around the "potential" bandwidth once most of the encoders had been changed out.

I was referring to the anecdotal evidence you'd gleaned from experiments with DIRECTV2PC data rates and looking at file sizes of recorded programs (this may have been someone else's work).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I was referring to the anecdotal evidence you'd gleaned from experiments with DIRECTV2PC data rates and looking at file sizes of recorded programs (this may have been someone else's work).


I've done a lot of that, but is not relative to the SATs. What one MPEG-4 program uses, can't be directly related to a TP, the SAT Mux for one, negates and addition of channels to have anything meaningful.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> I've done a lot of that, but is not relative to the SATs. What one MPEG-4 program uses, can't be directly related to a TP, the SAT Mux for one, negates and addition of channels to have anything meaningful.


But what the discussion really comes down to is how much bandwidth is used for programming and how much gets spent on insuring that the programming arrives unscathed. The sum of the parts is as close as we can come.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

According to the current NIT table for DISH (if I have the math right):
DISH Eastern Arc can transmit 3.015 million bits of information per second (after error corrections) on ConUS transponders currently in the NIT.
On the 37 ConUS transponders with at least one channel active for customers (and are not used for locals), DISH can transmit 1.449 million million bits of information per second.
22 transponders in the NIT are used for locals, 21 currently have no public channels.

DISH Western Arc can transmit 1.805 million bits of information per second (after error corrections) on ConUS transponders currently in the NIT.
On the 50 ConUS transponders with at least one channel active for customers (and are not used for locals), DISH can transmit 1.773 million million bits of information per second.
1 transponder is leased and not counted here.

Spotbeams not included.
(NIT = Network Information Table)​Helpful?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> But what the discussion really comes down to is how much bandwidth is used for programming and how much gets spent on insuring that the programming arrives unscathed. *The sum of the parts is as close as we can come*.


If we were dealing with fixed bit-rates, we might be able to "sum the parts".
The nature of MPEG-4 makes it impossible, as the bit-rates vary way too much. You would need access to the SAT Mux log.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Measuring, comparing, concluding ...

If we cannot establish base units, then we should measure HDD not in MB/GB/TB but in number of pictures and hours of video, as some [smart] marketeers doing that.

Getting bandwidth for one provider (thanks to Go... ummm James ), now let's get median value for HD and SD channels for the provider. Doing same for DTV by *harsh* [using gct's tables] could give us a value to compare two providers ...
We could start count only CONUS or both - doesn't matter if you have total BW and BW for each type of channel


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> If we were dealing with fixed bit-rates, we might be able to "sum the parts".


That's why I asked the question about 100% utilization. If we knew that the mux used all of the bandwidth, which program was using how much wouldn't much matter.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Helpful?


When combined with other freely available information (how many of what kinds of channels), quite a bit.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> That's why I asked the question about 100% utilization. If we knew that the mux used all of the bandwidth, which program was using how much wouldn't much matter.


If you inclined to find the number, I think you have $50-70 to buy DVB-S/DSS card (TH1020A), SW is free - TSReaderLite, dish and PC you have already.
The requested by you measures has dynamic nature - each tpn statmuxing - so using the card and TSR you will get it.

Take it, it's there.


----------

