# Up date on switch from Dish to Direct tv



## mkpolley (Dec 8, 2003)

Installer came out today,He was 1 hour early.
My setup now is a dish 1000 on a high tripod mounted on the roof,because of a large oak tree.




Direct installer said he could not mount the direct 5 sat. dish on the tripod,he claims it is much heavier than dish 1000,and it would cause a wind issue,tripod could not handle it.Im not sure about that?




I will stay with Dish network.Direct credited me for the recievers.


----------



## markyd21 (Mar 28, 2006)

The direct 5 sat is a monster. Did he show you?


----------



## zlensman (Jan 15, 2006)

mkpolley said:


> Direct installer said he could not mount the direct 5 sat. dish on the tripod,he claims it is much heavier than dish 1000,and it would cause a wind issue,tripod could not handle it.Im not sure about that?


Interesting. I would not have thought to consider satellite dish mounting as an issue when switching. I had heard that the 5 LNB dish is heavy and large. You would think that a Dish 1000+ with 4 LNBs would be almost as big. Apparently, a Dish 1000 with 3 LNBs is small enough to tripod mount, but not a 5 LNB. What about a 4 LNB, I wonder? I would hate to see the damage that the larger dishes would do if the wind blew one down!

D* has a picture of the 5 LNB dishes at their website:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4370040


----------



## mkpolley (Dec 8, 2003)

markyd21 said:


> The direct 5 sat is a monster. Did he show you?


no,he didnot show me,just talked me out of doing it,i guess there was some wind issues in a nearby town that had it on a tripod on the roof.my mast is quite high.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Some E* installers will refuse a roof mount on the D1000+ ... some installers will refuse a roof mount of any dish (even D300's) because of penetration issues. The D1000 that mkpolley has (not a +) would be smaller than the D1000+ ... more along the lines of a Phase III dish.

There are liability issues ... the installer didn't want to take the risk.


----------



## Yes616 (Sep 6, 2006)

James Long said:


> Some E* installers will refuse a roof mount on the D1000+ ... some installers will refuse a roof mount of any dish (even D300's) because of penetration issues. The D1000 that mkpolley has (not a +) would be smaller than the D1000+ ... more along the lines of a Phase III dish.
> 
> There are liability issues ... the installer didn't want to take the risk.


I guess I consider myself lucky.

I had a Dish 300 installed about 5 or 6 years ago looking at 61.5 for extra locals at the time. The installer came quite late and needed to mount it high due to tree issues. He put up a tripod on the roof and it was well after dark when he finnished.

He did very well. It never needed any reaiming.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I remember one of the first D* installs that I ever saw. It was mounted on a tripod on the very highest point of the roof. I asked the customer (a c band customer of mine at the time) why the installer put it where he did. The customer responded that the installer wanted to get it as close to the satellite as possible and that he would get better signal strength way up there. The lot was totally clear of trees and the dish could (should) have been mounted on the side of the house where it could be easily serviced. This was a Minnesota installation so I have no idea how they ever cleared snow off the thing, but, at least they are closer to the satellite. :lol:


----------



## DustoMan (Jul 16, 2005)

Richard King said:


> I remember one of the first D* installs that I ever saw. It was mounted on a tripod on the very highest point of the roof. I asked the customer (a c band customer of mine at the time) why the installer put it where he did. The customer responded that the installer wanted to get it as close to the satellite as possible and that he would get better signal strength way up there. The lot was totally clear of trees and the dish could (should) have been mounted on the side of the house where it could be easily serviced. This was a Minnesota installation so I have no idea how they ever cleared snow off the thing, but, at least they are closer to the satellite. :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "CLOSER TO THE SATELLITE!!?!?!?!?" I've never heard that one! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

Wind_River said:


> Isn't Minnesota closer to the satellites?


No, in fact, it's further away from the satellites, as the birds are in the southwet sky. So obviously the further north you go, the further away you are from them.


----------



## zlensman (Jan 15, 2006)

Uh oh, it's a math problem! Gather the kiddies around 'cause it's geometry time.

A satellite in geosynchronous orbit is about 22,236 mi (35,786 km) above sea level. Let's use a worst case scenario where the satellite is above one coast and the viewer is all the way at the opposite coast, a maximum distance of 2,747 mi (4421 km). We now have a right triangle with two sides of known length. The Pythagorean theorem tells us how to find the length of the hypotenuse:

a² + b² = c² (where ² indicates squared)

Plugging in the numbers we have, we find that a person on the opposite coast is 22,405 mi (36,058 km) from the satellite. That's a difference of 169 mi (272 km) -- a change of only 0.76% ! So, moving laterally around the country (at the same elevation) is not a big factor in distance to the satellite.

Elevation is even less important since the highest city -- Leadville, CO -- is 1.9 mi above sea level. A difference of 1.9 mi is even less significant than the 169 mi from the above example -- less than a hundredth of a percent! So, moving the satellite dish to the highest point of the roof would be a mathematically insignificant change. This exercise is left to the reader.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> No, in fact, it's further away from the satellites, as the birds are in the southwet sky. So obviously the further north you go, the further away you are from them.


Ah, but you get more rainfade if the satellites are in the southwet part of the sky.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

DustoMan said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "CLOSER TO THE SATELLITE!!?!?!?!?" I've never heard that one! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That's because Sparta Wisconsin is so far south of Minneapolis.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... tell ... jokes ... (too late).

Hey everybody, can you turn of your receivers? My receiver's signal level is low. If you turn off your receivers I won't have to share that satellite signal with as many people and my signal level will increase. Thanks!


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... tell ... jokes ... (too late).
> 
> Hey everybody, can you turn of your receivers? My receiver's signal level is low. If you turn off your receivers I won't have to share that satellite signal with as many people and my signal level will increase. Thanks!


Which would work best, a turn of the receiver to the left or the right? Maybe flip it upside down?  You guys just keep setting me up.


----------



## DStroyer (May 9, 2007)

My Aunt's big question about DVR's:

"You can pause live TV?? Wouldn't that upset the neighbors??"


----------

