# When Directv goes all mpeg4 will they still use 101,110 and 119?



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

I don't know much about all this and how it all works but are there sd satellite's capable of transmitting mpeg4 channels and would they use them once everyone is converted to mpeg4. Also another question is out all the satellites Directv has including thier sd and hd, which one has the most bandwidth capacity?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

mkdtv21 said:


> I don't know much about all this and how it all works but are there sd satellite's capable of transmitting mpeg4 channels and would they use them once everyone is converted to mpeg4. Also another question is out all the satellites Directv has including thier sd and hd, which one has the most bandwidth capacity?


As they only have a few transponders on 110 and a few more on 119, you can rule those out.

In reality, you would have to say the spotbeams have the most bandwidth capacity as they can distribute the same bandwidth mutliple times over the same satellite transponders to different regions of the USA.

Satellites do not care about HD/SD/MPEG2/MPEG4 format. It's all 1s and 0s to them.

Speculation 110/119 might be used for UHD programming with newer h.265/HVEC instead of h.264/MPEG4.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But the band does matter doesn't it? I don't think you can switch a ka transponder to Ku.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

you mean Ku to Ka? but why would you want to switch?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

No, the transponder frequency wont change but as already stated it doesnt care if the signal content is SD or HD or MPEG2, MPEG4, HVEC or something not even designed yet


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Yeah, Ku to Ka. It's not an area I know much about, but thought there was probably a particular reason that they put HD on Ka. Would they really want to have some HD on Ku and some on Ka?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Yeah, Ku to Ka. It's not an area I know much about, but thought there was probably a particular reason that they put HD on Ka. Would they really want to have some HD on Ku and some on Ka?


the reason HD is on Ka is just pure coincidence. DirecTV needed more sats but did not have the space (no pun intended) so they needed a satellite that can be close to their existing one. Ku requires 9 degrees of separation where as Ka requires only two.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

IMHO I don't see DIRECTV giving up any satellite slot/transponder licenses. They're hard to come by and with bandwidth always being a limiting factor doesn't make sense to get rid of them.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> the reason HD is on Ka is just pure coincidence. DirecTV needed more sats but did not have the space (no pun intended) so they needed a satellite that can be close to their existing one. Ku requires 9 degrees of separation where as Ka requires only two.


And in addition DIRECTV needed larger bandwidth transponders, 36 MHz, to transmit full HD (1920 x 1080) program multiplexes as opposed to the smaller 24 Mhz ones of the Ku band.

This means less transponders in a 500 MHz band of course, 24 (using a standard guard band of 4 Mhz between transponders) verses the 32 on the Ku band.

But is compensated for by having two 500 Mhz authorized sub-bands for Ka, "A" and "B." So allowing for a max. total of 48 transponders on Ka.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> the reason HD is on Ka is just pure coincidence. DirecTV needed more sats but did not have the space (no pun intended) so they needed a satellite that can be close to their existing one. Ku requires 9 degrees of separation where as Ka requires only two.


I submit that it had a whole lot more to do with the fact that the Ku frequencies are mostly taken than it is a proximity issue.

It probably also has something to do with the fact that Hughes bailed on a couple of Ka satellites that it had commissioned (Spaceway 1 and Spaceway 2).

The reason that they put HD and/or MPEG4 on Ka is because they didn't have a significant number of customers that needed to be upgraded to keep the same service whereas if they had tried to do that with SD, everyone would need new equipment.

The need for greater FEC at the more fade prone frequencies substantially negates any benefit of additional transponder bandwidth so HoTat2's argument may be, at least partially, a red herring.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> And in addition DIRECTV *needed larger bandwidth transponders, 36 MHz, to transmit full HD (1920 x 1080) program multiplexes as opposed to the smaller 24 Mhz ones of the Ku band.*
> 
> This means less transponders in a 500 MHz band of course, 24 (using a standard guard band of 4 Mhz between transponders) verses the 32 on the Ku band.
> 
> But is compensated for by having two 500 Mhz authorized sub-bands for Ka, "A" and "B." So allowing for a max. total of 48 transponders on Ka.


Wrong point; [email protected] and/119W has DSS-3 (aka Ka) tpns and has enough bitrate to transmit H.264 eg HD channels. Less then on Ka, but enough for a few.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Wrong point; [email protected] and/119W has DSS-3 (aka Ka) tpns and has enough bitrate to transmit H.264 eg HD channels. Less then on Ka, but enough for a few.


Yes P. Smith ...

But as I understand it, the "DSS-3" HD signals on G3C or Ku transponder 24 @119 (for 4 Spanish HD channels at present) have to use 8-PSK modulation to reduce the data throughput requirement in order to squeeze sufficient numbers of programs into the lesser 24 Mhz wide transponders there.

However, 8-PSK is apparently not suitable (at least to DIRECTV engineers it seems) for Ka band CONUS beams, and thus use only QPSK mod. for them. Therefore a greater transponder bandwidth is necessary on Ka for them to handle the greater data throughput requirement for the lower mod. level.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

in general you are correct, but DTV employ both

Ka tpn using both QPSK and 8PSK modulation , DSS-3 is actually DVB-S2 type with DTV's AMC addition for content protection


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> in general you are correct, but DTV employ both
> 
> Ka tpn using both QPSK and 8PSK modulation , DSS-3 is actually DVB-S2 type with DTV's AMC addition for content protection


Do they ever use 8-PSK mod. on CONUS beams?

I'm aware DIRECTV uses it for spotbeams on occasion, but CONUS?

And what does "AMC" mean?

I thought DIRECTV uses NDS Videoguard for content protection.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

check with Gary

see DTV patents


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Speculation 110/119 might be used for UHD programming with newer h.265/HVEC instead of h.264/MPEG4.


+1 I hope.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They will absolutely still use 101, as others have pointed out there is nothing connecting Ku to MPEG2 and Ka to MPEG4. Once it no longer carries MPEG2, it'll carry MPEG4 and no doubt by that time HEVC (for 4K) They may move some heavily watched HD channels like ESPN and HBO to 101, and would probably want 4K channels there as well, to take advantage of Ku's greater rain fade resistance.

As far as 110 and 119, who knows. When the satellite at 110 needs to be replaced, will it really be worth the expense for Directv to do so to provide a mere three transponders? They aren't even using them right now in the US (I think they are in PR) The argument is that they don't want the competition (i.e. Dish) to get them, but is it really worth launching a satellite to keep Dish from adding three more transponders? I can't see how. On 119 they have a total of 11 transponders (7 CONUS, 4 spots on the current satellite) so I agree giving that up would be highly unlikely.

My belief is that once Directv ceases MPEG2 broadcast, 110 and 119 will not be used for customer broadcast in the US. They seem to have plenty of internal uses for bandwidth (they have 2000 MHz of Ka bandwidth on 101 they use internally now) and it makes sense to keep all the customer content into the tight little group they now have at 99/101/103.

Directv is licensed for a ton of new bandwidth on 99/103 in the RDBS band (17.3 to 17.7 GHz, just a bit below Ka lo) Their next two satellites are both capable of doing CONUS broadcast in that band. We can't know right now if they'll use it for customer content or internal use. If it is used for customers it would only require a new LNB (and a firmware update, obviously) for every HD customer to begin receiving it. I wouldn't be surprised to see them replicate all the content on 119 and 95 on RDBS. It would only require about 6 or 7 transponders (out of the 18 or 36 RDBS transponders they would have available) and they'd only have to make that new LNB in SL3 form - no more SL5, and no more LOS issues there sometimes are with 119.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> +1 I hope.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


DIRECTV is not going to throw 4k on those satelites. 99, 101, and 103 are the likely targets for 4k.

I think 110 an 119 are all about foregin channels going forward long term.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

I hope they dont stop braodcasting thier SD stuff... Some of us DO NOT LIKE HD and dont want to pay for it!!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They will at some point but not till it's cost effective which is still
Years away unfortunately.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> I submit that it had a whole lot more to do with the fact that the Ku frequencies are mostly taken than it is a proximity issue.It probably also has something to do with the fact that Hughes bailed on a couple of Ka satellites that it had commissioned (Spaceway 1 and Spaceway 2).The reason that they put HD and/or MPEG4 on Ka is because they didn't have a significant number of customers that needed to be upgraded to keep the same service whereas if they had tried to do that with SD, everyone would need new equipment.The need for greater FEC at the more fade prone frequencies substantially negates any benefit of additional transponder bandwidth so HoTat2's argument may be, at least partially, a red herring.


To be clear, the original purpose of the Spaceway satellites was to provide a satellite based internet service. This is why they used configurable transmission beams (phased arrays) so as to allow bandwidth to be dynamically reallocated as needed. However, the market for satellite broadband never really took off. So, when DirecTV was sold by Hughes the 2 Spaceway satellites were included in the deal. Their existence allowed DirecTV to launch large scale HD service far more quickly and cost effectively than trying to lease space and/or build and launch purpose built satellites (as Dish Network had to do). Their location, very close to the existing satellites at 101, also precluded almost any line of sight issues for existing customers wishing to upgrade to HD and allowed all English language customers to obtain service with a single relatively compact dish (at the time, Dish required 2 dishes for full service coverage).

I would hardly say that the increased FEC required for Ka "substantially" negates the benefit of Ka as a transmission medium. Not only are the transponders using wider channels, the higher frequency supports a higher bit rate, all other things being equal. For example, 8PSK encoding puts 3 bits into every radio cycle, so the more cycles per second, the more bits per second. Even with the same transponder band width, using Ka would provide a bit rate advantage, even with the higher FEC.

The main reason wider transponders are an advantage is that the more distinct video channels you can place on a single transponder, the greater the flexibility available to the statistical multiplexers. If we can only fit 4 channels on a transponder, the ability to steal bandwidth from one channel and give it to another (whose data load has spiked momentarily) is reduced versus a situation where I have 6 or 7 channels to borrow from. Ultimately, this allows more total channels to be carried in the same total bandwidth.


----------



## Gofastr (Sep 20, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> I don't know much about all this and how it all works but are there sd satellite's capable of transmitting mpeg4 channels and would they use them once everyone is converted to mpeg4. Also another question is out all the satellites Directv has including thier sd and hd, which one has the most bandwidth capacity?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Gofastr said:


> > I don't know much about all this and how it all works but are there sd satellite's capable of transmitting mpeg4 channels and would they use them once everyone is converted to mpeg4. Also another question is out all the satellites Directv has including thier sd and hd, which one has the most bandwidth capacity?


and what is your answer ?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> They will at some point but not till it's cost effective which is still
> Years away unfortunately.


Well, according to Directv's SVP for Space and Communications, that day may arrive as soon as 2016. At least that's what he said on two separate occasions in 2012. I don't think it would really happen that quickly, but maybe it won't be as far away as 2020 or beyond like some have suggested.

http://advanced-television.com/2012/03/15/directv-planning-for-u-hdtv/

http://advanced-television.com/2012/10/01/37560/



> He explained that DirecTV expected to convert its current standard-definition Ku-band signals to U-HDTV by 2016.
> 
> He added that by 2016 all of its standard-def transmissions would have converted to HDTV, and using its local-into-local Ka-Band capacity. He said with standard-definition broadcasting ceasing the broadcaster would have 1 gigahertz of freed-up satellite spectrum available for use by U-HDTV, to a potential 20 million homes.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Dude111 said:


> I hope they dont stop braodcasting thier SD stuff... Some of us DO NOT LIKE HD and dont want to pay for it!!


May I ask why you don't like HD?
You probably didn't like color TV when it was first provided. :smoking:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Dude111 said:


> I hope they dont stop braodcasting thier SD stuff... Some of us DO NOT LIKE HD and dont want to pay for it!!


They still might do that but just disable any output besides 480i on the STB until you pay the extra HD fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Well, according to Directv's SVP for Space and Communications, that day may arrive as soon as 2016. At least that's what he said on two separate occasions in 2012. I don't think it would really happen that quickly, but maybe it won't be as far away as 2020 or beyond like some have suggested.
> 
> http://advanced-television.com/2012/03/15/directv-planning-for-u-hdtv/
> 
> http://advanced-television.com/2012/10/01/37560/


2016 is about the time I could see them begin the transition maybe but that transition will take years unless they treat it with some amazing urgency for some reason which I just don't see. I expect it to take years to change people's equipment.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> *I submit that it had a whole lot more to do with the fact that the Ku frequencies are mostly taken than it is a proximity issue.*
> 
> The need for greater FEC at the more fade prone frequencies substantially negates any benefit of additional transponder bandwidth so HoTat2's argument may be, at least partially, a *red herring.*


And how is what I said in anyway a "red herring?"

As you suggest above the Ku frequencies are mostly taken so there is really no room for HD on the Ku band slots much less for simultaneous sharing the band with SD transmissions. So you either have to move up or down the spectrum as well as keeping it sufficiently close to 101w to eliminate LOS issues and reduce dish size requirements which are already increased due to the higher dish gain needed for the reception of weaker Ka band signals.

Now DIRECTV can't go down the spectrum to conduct DBS service in the commercial FSS band (11.7-12.2 Ghz) for obvious reasons of gross interference to commercial systems. And they can't use the extended Ku band (10.7-11.7 Ghz) without causing interference to DIRECTV LA subscribers which use that spectrum.

So DIRECTV needs to move up the spectrum to the Ka band which affords them use of two 500 Mhz sub-bands. Combine this with opposite polarization selectivity makes for 2 Ghz total effective bandwidth available.

Yes, as with most things, there is a trade-off in the increased signal attenuation at those higher frequencies, but the reason and advantages I outlined for the move to Ka is hardly a red herring.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> 2016 is about the time I could see them begin the transition maybe but that transition will take years unless they treat it with some amazing urgency for some reason which I just don't see. I expect it to take years to change people's equipment.


I agree;

And I also think Phil Goswitz made a mistake in those oft quoted statements and meant that all national SD would be converted to HDTV by 2016 using Ka band "CONUS" capacity, not "Local into Local" (or LiL) which makes no sense.

Either way though, it won't be consummated by 2016. No way.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think they will Start with moving all Sunday ticket and other sports subscriptions to Hi Definition only. Then maybe some Of the premium channels. Then go market by market. Then they can shut off sd. That should only take five years from When they start.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> 2016 is about the time I could see them begin the transition maybe but that transition will take years unless they treat it with some amazing urgency for some reason which I just don't see. I expect it to take years to change people's equipment.


The only way I think it would be "urgent" is if 4K was a much bigger hit than almost anyone thinks it will be.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Nah. That will take years to become a hit or regular stations. And even then I see HBO and such going to it some but not every channel. Not for many many years. And no over the air stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Now DIRECTV can't go down the spectrum to conduct DBS service in the commercial FSS band (11.7-12.2 Ghz) for obvious reasons of gross interference to commercial systems.


DirecTV can use any band that they can get FCC permission to use at a specific location. If the FSS band is available at a satellite slot or the holder of that slot wishes to lease to DirecTV they could use commercial FSS.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> the reason HD is on Ka is just pure coincidence. .


 Yep ka Spaceway 1 and 2 were meant to be used for broadband services. That fell through so Directv changed their plans and decided to use them for HD service..

The question I have is . Would our HD be coming off Ku satellites instead if that broadband Spaceway 1/2 flop didn't exist? I would say yes.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Yep ka Spaceway 1 and 2 were meant to be used for broadband services. That fell through so Directv changed their plans and decided to use them for HD service..
> 
> The question I have is . Would our HD be coming off Ku satellites instead if that broadband Spaceway 1/2 flop didn't exist? I would say yes.
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


But as I explained to harsh;

If true, then where exactly on the Ku band could DIRECTV have realistically placed HD service to both share with SD and have no LOS issues for subs across the nation?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

If DirecTV didn't have vast amounts of Ka bandwidth available, they would have had to do exactly what Dish Network did: lease space on FSS satellites, buy access to other slots and put satellites there, and perhaps even gone to a "2 arc" solution, because a single constellation with true CONUS coverage might not have been possible.

But, whether you think it was serendipity or planning, they did have a whole lot of Ka available, and that capacity was within 3 degrees of the slot from which every single DirecTV customer obtained the vast majority of their current programming. They showed it could be used for DTH service and that's how we get our HD today.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But as I explained to harsh;
> 
> If true, then where exactly on the Ku band could DIRECTV have realistically placed HD service to both share with SD and have no LOS issues for subs across the nation?


The same as now launch new satellites or lease. 
Dish seems to be making out ok with their KU.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> DirecTV can use any band that they can get FCC permission to use at a specific location. If the FSS band is available at a satellite slot or the holder of that slot wishes to lease to DirecTV they could use commercial FSS.


OK, sorry;

Wasn't aware the FCC (normally at least) permits high power DBS service on the 11.7-12.2 Ghz FSS band.

But even with that allowance, still where could DIRECTV get comparable service solely on the Ku band with the same advantages they have with the present Ka/Ku dual band system all conveniently clustered near a single slot around 101 this way as DianaC very well explains in her recent post?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> OK, sorry;
> 
> Wasn't aware the FCC (normally at least) permits high power DBS service on the 11.7-12.2 Ghz FSS band.
> 
> But even with that allowance, still where could DIRECTV get comparable service solely on the Ku band with the same advantages they have with the present Ka/Ku dual band system all conveniently clustered near a single slot around 101 this way as DianaC very well explains in her recent post?


Honestly I'm not so sure one single LOS is always a benifit.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> The same as now launch new satellites or lease.
> *Dish seems to be making out ok with their KU.*
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


But I'd say not with the same advantages and convenience of the virtually single slot Ka/Ku dual band system as DianaC points out.

In addition to not needing to resort to things like down-rezzing full HD programs to 1440 x 1080 to allow more channels to fit into the smaller 24 MHz wide transponders on Ku band as dish does.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But I'd say not with the same advantages and convenience of the virtually single slot Ka/Ku dual band system as DianaC points out.
> 
> In addition to not needing to resort to things like down-rezzing full HD programs to 1440 x 1080 to allow more channels to fit into the smaller 24 MHz wide transponders on Ku band as dish does.


See now I think thats more Charlies cost saving measure more than a KU disadvantage. But when you haven't added many customers in the past 5 years you tend to not have a lot of money for expansion.
And when you get sued and lose to TiVo lawsuits that tends to take some out of the pot.

And remember Dish could have spent their money all on Western arc, If the Northeast coast states could have used the 129.

I don't think Directv would have had any of these issue had they went KU for everything.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Honestly I'm not so sure one single LOS is always a benifit.
> 
> Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


If it's centrally located it is, as is 101,

Particularly so for subscribers in the NW and NE portions of the country.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> If it's centrally located it is, as is 101,
> 
> Particularly so for subscribers in the NW and NE portions of the country.


Yes I agree,
But again Dish Networks Eastern Arc Has a Much better look angle when it comes to Trees , Your Talking 3-7 Degrees. Makes a difference when it comes to Tree lines in the North East.

But again it is what it is.

My Slimline is 35.5,
Dish 1000.4 is 42.2

Many Homes in Pocono Farms East and West, as Well as Pocono Country Place ( Huge developments with Tree cutting restrictions)
Have thousands of failed Directv installs.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Yes I agree,
> But again Dish Networks Eastern Arc Has a Much better look angle when it comes to Trees , Your Talking 3-7 Degrees. Makes a difference when it comes to Tree lines in the North East.
> 
> But again it is what it is.
> ...


I see your point but somehow I think it is much better for the bottom line to give up a few thousand or even 10s of thousands customers than it would be to build, launch and support 2 sets of satellites


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> See now I think thats more Charlies cost saving measure more than a KU disadvantage. But when you haven't added many customers in the past 5 years you tend to not have a lot of money for expansion.
> And when you get sued and lose to TiVo lawsuits that tends to take some out of the pot.
> 
> And remember Dish could have spent their money all on Western arc, If the Northeast coast sates could have used the 129.
> ...


But even if true, where would Charlie expand to if he wished?

Each Ku DBS slot is allowed a max. of 32 transponders at 24 Mhz width per.

So even using 8-PSK modulation and MPEG-4 compression as Dish does for their HD programs greatly helps reduce bandwidth. Apparently it's still not sufficient and must use spatial compression of the images as well by down-converting native 1920 x 1080 HD programs to 1440 x 1080 resolution to reduce bit rates sufficiently to fit more channels per transponder without bit staving the individual programs in a transponder multiplex.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

longrider said:


> I see your point but somehow I think it is much better for the bottom line to give up a few thousand or even 10s of thousands customers than it would be to build, launch and support 2 sets of satellites


+1


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But even if true, where would Charlie expand to if he wished?


Thats what happends when your the 2nd company to Launch USSB service. You miss out LOL!

The 129, seriously what country was he serving? :hair:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

longrider said:


> I see your point but somehow I think it is much better for the bottom line to give up a few thousand or even 10s of thousands customers than it would be to build, launch and support 2 sets of satellites


I agree. But its still nice if all else fails. Most of these developments don't even have cable.

Thats just my area, What about the rest of the country?

I'm not against dual arcs, As many Directv satellites that are crammed together in one spot, what would be the difference if they were spread out ?

What does Directv have, 8 Active satellites Between the 99 and 103 going for one more?

I think Dish only has 4 on Eastern arc and 4 on western arc? I could be wrong?

I would think 6 orbital locations would bring more Space 192 TP But would divide up the locals, maybe allowing more locals channels per market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Wasn't aware the FCC (normally at least) permits high power DBS service on the 11.7-12.2 Ghz FSS band.


They don't. They allow FSS service on the FSS band. But DBS carriers can (and do) lease FSS band satellites to be used as part of their "DBS" systems. Just like DirecTV uses Ka band satellites within the legal limits for that service.



HoTat2 said:


> But even with that allowance, still where could DIRECTV get comparable service solely on the Ku band with the same advantages they have with the present Ka/Ku dual band system all conveniently clustered near a single slot around 101 this way as DianaC very well explains in her recent post?


If they could get the owners of the FSS satellites at 99,101 and/or 103 to lease them space they could go there. If they can't get the lease or a license then they will have to go somewhere else. DirecTV managed to get the licenses for Ka so they went there.

There is no mystical science that prevents HD from being transmitted from Ku FSS satellites - even if those satellites are in the same basic slot as a Ku DBS satellite. Both satellites can easily be received on one antenna less than a meter in diameter (OTARD friendly). No harmful interference.



HoTat2 said:


> In addition to not needing to resort to things like down-rezzing full HD programs to 1440 x 1080 to allow more channels to fit into the smaller 24 MHz wide transponders on Ku band as dish does.


DISH downrezzes so they can fit eight or nine HD channels on each transponder. If they wanted to do full 1920x1080 HD on their DBS satellites they could. They just decided to go with more channels instead of less channels at higher resolution.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> The 129, seriously what country was he serving? :hair:


The continental US. 129 is a decent location for most of it ... not too far off from 119 and a high power DBS location (not FSS or Ka). 110-119-129 with 82 transponder frequencies (many used for spots) is a good arc. 101-110-119 isn't that far away with 46 DBS transponder frequencies (many used for spots). DISH had the 61.5 slot from the original allotments to fall back on (DISH's second orbital location - before using 110). And it was not hard to lease 72 from the Canadians (with DirecTV leaving that slot) and 77 from EchoStar's Mexican partners.



damondlt said:


> I think Dish only has 4 on Eastern arc and 4 on western arc? I could be wrong?


It isn't the number of satellites but the licensed bandwidth they can use. It is easy for two or more DBS satellites to share a slot. Are two satellites serving 16 transponders each somehow better than one serving all 32?

DISH currently has 83 transponder frequencies (many used for spots) available or in use on Eastern Arc.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> Honestly I'm not so sure one single LOS is always a benifit.


How could it not be? The bigger the spread the more chance that a given potential customer will have LOS issues to one of the satellites.

If Directv had a wider arc, instead of one direction with potential LOS issues, they'd have three. You triple the number of customers who won't subscribe. Or do you think they should replicate all content across two satellites, so they can add that small number of potential customers who have LOS issues to 99/101/103 but would be fine with satellites located elsewhere? Doing that would probably cost them hundreds of times more than what they made.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> How could it not be? The bigger the spread the more chance that a given potential customer will have LOS issues to one of the satellites.
> 
> If Directv had a wider arc, instead of one direction with potential LOS issues, they'd have three. You triple the number of customers who won't subscribe. Or do you think they should replicate all content across two satellites, so they can add that small number of potential customers who have LOS issues to 99/101/103 but would be fine with satellites located elsewhere? Doing that would probably cost them hundreds of times more than what they made.


I can tell you as far as the 119 is not involved, there are few NLOS customers who can't have DirecTV in my area, and when customers who has LOS issues is because they have trees ALL around, they tend to live in a "forest".


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I can tell you as far as the 119 is not involved, there are few NLOS customers who can't have DirecTV in my area, and when customers who has LOS issues is because they have trees ALL around, they tend to live in a "forest".


 Yep and most of the Northeastern part of the USA is forest and mountains. Where many suffer Los issues. Again having options is not all bad.

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The continental US. 129 is a decent location for most of it ... not too far off from 119 and a high power DBS location (not FSS or Ka). 110-119-129 with 82 transponder frequencies (many used for spots) is a good arc. 101-110-119 isn't that far away with 46 DBS transponder frequencies (many used for spots). DISH had the 61.5 slot from the original allotments to fall back on (DISH's second orbital location - before using 110). And it was not hard to lease 72 from the Canadians (with DirecTV leaving that slot) and 77 from EchoStar's Mexican partners.
> 
> It isn't the number of satellites but the licensed bandwidth they can use. It is easy for two or more DBS satellites to share a slot. Are two satellites serving 16 transponders each somehow better than one serving all 32?
> 
> DISH currently has 83 transponder frequencies (many used for spots) available or in use on Eastern Arc.


Well you can make an argument that it's better to have two and have the stuff spread around so you can't lose everything if a sat fails.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

As for what would DIRECTV have done without te space ways and bandwidth at 99 and 103.... 

How much would it have cost to replace everyone's recievers with Hi Definition boxes versus buy and building the six satelites plus at 99 and 103? Just a thought. 

There's always more than one way and usually more than two.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> As for what would DIRECTV have done without te space ways and bandwidth at 99 and 103....
> 
> How much would it have cost to replace everyone's recovers with Hi Definition boxes versus buy and building the six satelites plus at 99 and 103?


Not sure what your asking.
We where wondering what the plan would have been if Directv Never had the spaceway satellites. How would they have expanded their HD offering? 
Remember the Spaceways were for Broadband internet.

And Directv did change customers boxes. H20 HR20 MPEG4.

And anymore the complaints about switching out equipment cost too much is no longer valid. Equipment changes are so frequent with all providers anymore .

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Not sure what your asking.
> We where wondering what the plan would have been if Directv Never had the spaceway satellites. How would they have expanded their HD offering?
> Remember the Spaceways were for Broadband internet.
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point. I'm saying if they hadn't spent all the money in the satelites they could have replaced everyone's receiver and just replaced sd with Hi Definition and not run both at once. It would have been tight but I think they would have been able to almost do it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Well you can make an argument that it's better to have two and have the stuff spread around so you can't lose everything if a sat fails.


Redundancy is good (for satellites) ... and there is an advantage to having two satellites share the load when it comes to power use on the satellite. But for day to day use multiple satellites serving the same license does not increase bandwidth.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> And anymore the complaints about switching out equipment cost too much is no longer valid. Equipment changes are so frequent with all providers anymore .


If it were trivial I wonder why DirecTV or DISH have not started the process. Perhaps they are waiting for more voluntary upgrades and attrition to thin out the older receivers? The HD technology fee certainly doesn't help encourage voluntary upgrades. Perhaps DirecTV needs to get better at losing customers with SD and replacing them with customers with HD?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Redundancy is good (for satellites) ... and there is an advantage to having two satellites share the load when it comes to power use on the satellite. But for day to day use multiple satellites serving the same license does not increase bandwidth.


Exactly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> If DirecTV didn't have vast amounts of Ka bandwidth available, they would have had to do exactly what Dish Network did: lease space on FSS satellites...


A lesson DISH learned from DIRECTV who continues to use 95W for their diminishing international programming offering.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> > If DirecTV didn't have vast amounts of Ka bandwidth available, they would have had to do exactly what Dish Network did: lease space on FSS satellites...
> 
> 
> A lesson DISH learned from DIRECTV who continues to use 95W for their diminishing international programming offering.


DISH still uses three FSS satellites ... 105 has internal feeds, 121 is used for business TV channels and 118 is used for internationals (including HD channels). 105 and 121 were the original "SuperDish" satellites (105 put into service in October 2003, 121 put into service in November 2003). Channels on 118 and 121 are part of the same system tables as their DBS satellite fleet.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

> May I ask why you don't like HD?


Well I have always loved SD,this isnt a movie theater!! (I much love SD....HD is too big and doesnt look as good in my opinion)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Accept that you can get an Hi Definition tv in any size you can an sd set and I have to wonder if you dot like it because you've only seen tvs with the motion junk on it that I also hate. Hi Definition is so far superior though for resolution it's not even a competition. As long as it's shown without the "real motion" junk many tvs offer. 

At least IMHO.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DISH still uses three FSS satellites ... 105 has internal feeds, 121 is used for business TV channels and 118 is used for internationals (including HD channels).


My point was that FSS was presented (negatively) as something that DISH "innovated" when DIRECTV actually went there quite a bit before and still uses today.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

As has been said, ANY digital information can be transmitted on ANY satellite. Some frequency bands are, however, more advantageous than others for various types of data. Since we're talking about DirecTV and Dish Network, let's limit our discussion to linear audio/video broadcast.

To date, four different bands have been used for A/V broadcasting: C band, Ku FSS band, Ku DBS band and Ka band (with a fifth, RDBS, coming soon). Of these, C band is the most resistant to rain fade and other atmospheric interference. Howevre, most C band satellite locations are already occupied, and the much lower frequency requires a much larger reflector on the receiving antenna to obtain adequate gain. For these reasons, DTH use of C band has largely fallen out of favor.

Ku is most commonly used for DTH service in North America. Ku FSS and Ku DBS share similar rain fade characteristics, but FSS service is generally powered by transpoinders with anywhere from 70% to 50% of the power of a Ku DBS transponder. To compensate for the reduced power, the dish reflector must be somewhat larger for FSS than for a pure DBS service. In the old days, Primestar was delivered from a Ku FSS satellite and used an oval dish, just under a meter wide.

DirecTV uses Ka for their HD service, and Ka is used in Europe and Asia to carry a wide variety of content. Because of it's higher frequency (and therefore shorter wavelength) Ka is more susceptible to rainfade than Ku. However, the shorter wavelength also means that a dish of a given size will provide more gain for Ka than for Ku, all else being equal. With a modest increase in dish size, Ka can reach 99.9% reliability (the minimum target for DTH service). _(Note however that even 99.9% relaibility means that service could be disrupted for up to about 9 hours a year.)_

Each of these transmission mediums have advantages and disadvantages (dish size, rain fade sensitivity, availablity of licenses, etc.). None is inherently better or worse than any other. Dish went the all Ku route because they didn't have any available licenses of their own to use, and the capacity that *was* available was all Ku capacity. The fact that DirecTV had not only the Ka licenses, but also 2 satellites that could use them (one ready to launch and the other far down the construction path), meant that Dish didn't have time to start building any new satellites...they needed the capacity right away. So they licensed some, redeployed some of their existing satellites, and stayed competitive until they could get some new satellites in place.

It should also be noted that Echostar/Dish Network held Ka licenses as well at one point. They lost them for failing to meet the FCC required milestones. DirecTV would likely have lost theirs as well, if it were not for the fact that Hughes had started construction on the Spaceway satellites.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> My point was that FSS was presented (negatively) as something that DISH "innovated" when DIRECTV actually went there quite a bit before and still uses today.


It was not meant as a negative satement, just a fact. DirecTV happened to have Ka satellites and licenses. Dish did not. So, each company followed the path of least resistance to obtain the required capacity. *My* point is actually that NEITHER approach is better or worse than the other. It is just the way things worked out.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> My point was that FSS was presented (negatively) as something that DISH "innovated" when DIRECTV actually went there quite a bit before and still uses today.


Perhaps you need to check your dates. "Quite a bit before" for DirecTV US international service on 95W?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Not much as DTV here



> , and Ka is used in *Europe* and Asia to carry a wide variety of content.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

True, Eutelsat is the only commercial Ka satellite operator in Europe, AFAIK. But my point is that Ka use is spreading.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Perhaps you need to check your dates. "Quite a bit before" for DirecTV US international service on 95W?


I was wrong.

The Superdish debuted in November 2003 and DIRECTV turned up the WorldDirect service in November 2004 with a Vietnamese channel (SBTN) and a Korean channel (SBS).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Ku is most commonly used for DTH service in North America. Ku FSS and Ku DBS share similar rain fade characteristics, but FSS service is generally powered by transpoinders with anywhere from 70% to 50% of the power of a Ku DBS transponder.


The range is actually 20-50%


> However, the shorter wavelength also means that a dish of a given size will provide more gain for Ka than for Ku, all else being equal.


In this case, all else is not equal as DIRECTV uses paired 130W amplifiers to send the signal with 260 watts of power.


> Each of these transmission mediums have advantages and disadvantages (dish size, rain fade sensitivity, availablity of licenses, etc.). None is inherently better or worse than any other.


Ka is easily the most expensive power-wise, suffers considerably more from rain fade and requires a dish nearly as large as FSS. Ka's advantages are is its availability and possibly its 2 degree spacing (that plays into the availability).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It would be nice to see a formula to support the statement.


> ... Because of it's higher frequency (and therefore shorter wavelength) Ka is more susceptible to rainfade than Ku. However, *the shorter wavelength also means that a dish of a given size will provide more gain for Ka than for Ku*, all else being equal. With a modest increase in dish size, Ka can reach 99.9% reliability (the minimum target for DTH service). _(Note however that even 99.9% relaibility means that service could be disrupted for up to about 9 hours a year.)_...for failing to meet the FCC required milestones.
> ...


----------



## MattWarner (Feb 11, 2007)

I have nothing technical to add to this... but I did want to say THANK YOU to all the posters... Fascinating conversation!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> P Smith, on 01 Mar 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
> It would be nice to see a formula to support the statement.


G = 10 log10 K(Pi*D/wl)2

Where G = Gain in dB
K = the efficiency factor which is generally around 50% to 60%, i.e. 0.5 to 0.6
D = the diameter of the parabolic reflector in meters
wl = the wavelength of the signal in meters

So, as the wavelength gets smaller (which happens as the frequency rises) a dish of a given diameter and efficiency will provide increasing gain.

BTW: for those that want to do the calculation, DBS Ku has a wavelength of roughly 2.5cm, and Ka has a wavelength of about 1.5cm.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> The range is actually 20-50%


Ok, I won't get into the difference between transponder power and radiated power. It's not that important.



harsh said:


> In this case, all else is not equal as DIRECTV uses paired 130W amplifiers to send the signal with 260 watts of power.


So? Doesn't really have anything to do with my comment. Higher power increases EIRP, it doesn't change the gain of a dish.



harsh said:


> Ka is easily the most expensive power-wise, suffers considerably more from rain fade and requires a dish nearly as large as FSS. Ka's advantages are is its availability and possibly its 2 degree spacing (that plays into the availability).


That advantage is pretty important. I could have a thousand Ku transponders ready for use, but without a licensed location to put them, they are totally useless.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Is DBS Ku spacing still 9* or is it officially 4.5*? Are those "tweener" slots at 105.5 and 114.5 operational? Even at 2* versus 4.5* that seems like a big difference for a 1.5cm vs 2.5cm wavelength difference...

Higher frequencies offering more gain for a given dish size is great and all, but if your signal and your noise (i.e. nearby slots owned by others) are both at the same frequency you don't derive any benefit from the higher gain in terms of interference from your "neighbors", do you?

If that's the case, is the closer spacing of Ka a result of the smaller wavelength somehow reducing such interference from nearby slots? If so, that benefit would have to compensate for the negative of geometry (i.e. the view to the sky of for example 101/110/119 in Bangor vs San Diego) enough to allow closer spacing. If Directv used a toroidal dish and installation allowed/required adjusting the LNB spacing I could understand it, but they don't, they use a one size fits all dish across all of CONUS.

Would it have helped reduce spacing requirements if the FCC/ITU staggered polarity assignments on every other slot? For example, if they wanted 1* spacing for a certain frequency block, using H/V polarization on even slots and circular polarization on odd slots. I know RF is still RF regardless of polarity, and perhaps I simply don't know enough about how this all works to make this suggestion, but I can't help wondering if this would allow for a way to better distinguish your RF from "their" RF in the design of a dish/LNB.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If I recall correctly, the 2 degree spaced satellites already use reversed polarity to help keep the slots separate. The last time I looked at the plan the Tweeners were to be reversed polarity from the current slots.

Thanks for mentioning the geometry. Sometimes people forget that the degree separation from the perspective of a dish varies - especially between the extremes of the coverage area.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Reversed how? Do you mean Ka from 101 (used by Directv internally) uses H/V instead of LCHP/RHCP, or do mean you reversed in some other sense?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

it's reverse using uplink/downlink chunks of spectrum


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> it's reverse using uplink/downlink chunks of spectrum


I think "reverse" in this context refers to the transponder signal polarity schema .

Instead of the normal even numbered tps. which use H/LHCP, and the odd tps. that use V/RHCP for both up- and down-links. It's H/LHCP for the odd and V/LHCP for the even.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Is DBS Ku spacing still 9* or is it officially 4.5*? Are those "tweener" slots at 105.5 and 114.5 operational? Even at 2* versus 4.5* that seems like a big difference for a 1.5cm vs 2.5cm wavelength difference...
> 
> Higher frequencies offering more gain for a given dish size is great and all, but if your signal and your noise (i.e. nearby slots owned by others) are both at the same frequency you don't derive any benefit from the higher gain in terms of interference from your "neighbors", do you?
> 
> ...


From my knowledge of it;

The greater dish aspect ratio (D/wavelength) of the dish for Ka band frequencies increases the dish's directivity (i.e. it narrows its beamwidth) which reduces co-channel interference from adjacent slots permitting the closer spacing of neighboring co-frequency satellites for the same level of interference (or "C/I" ratio) compared to the Ku DBS band.

As to satellite arc perspective from a given location, I gather such close spacing of the satellites as DIRECTV has from only 99-103 degrees, is seen by a customer's ODU as a virtual single slot at 101 degrees no matter the viewing angle in the CONUS, Alaska, or Hawaii.

For instance, notice how the same LNBF (and thus same feedhorn spacing) for the 1.2m Al/Hi dish can be used in either the mainland U.S. or Hawaii which is over 2500 mi. away from the mainland's west coast.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> From my knowledge of it;
> 
> The greater dish aspect ratio (D/wavelength) of the dish for Ka band frequencies increases the dish's directivity (i.e. it narrows its beamwidth) which reduces co-channel interference from adjacent slots permitting the closer spacing of neighboring co-frequency satellites for the same level of interference (or "C/I" ratio) compared to the Ku DBS band.
> 
> ...


I agree the geometry doesn't matter for 99/101/103, but I specifically mentioned 101/110/119. Unless Directv drops 110/119 from customer use in the future, the geometry for those still matters. So what happens if/when there are DBS satellites at 105.5 and 114.5? I would think the geometry could make that an issue, and if not it's close.

Close enough that Directv doesn't make a 5LNB for the AK/HI dish. If those customers want 119, they have to use a second 1.2m dish, so the geometry must be off by enough between HI and the rather large range of possible locations in AK that they can't place 101 and 119 LNBs in such a way that both will work for all locations in both states.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

they cannot make unified dish for add 95W (it's 6 degree spacing) not telling the non-existing sat at 105.5W


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> they cannot make unified dish for add 95W (it's 6 degree spacing) not telling the non-existing sat at 105.5W


I thought spacing wasn't the only reason there's no SL6, but also because it isn't circularly polarized like the rest and it wouldn't be possible to align a single dish that had 99/101/103/110/119 and added a 95 H polarized LNB?

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting geometry issues in making a dish that receives 101 and 105.5, but that someone else's 105.5 sat could interfere with Directv's reception from 101 and/or 110 in certain locations because the SL5 has fixed LNB spacing even though the spacing of the satellites _in the sky_ is variable depending on where in the US you're located.

If Directv wanted to add 95 (or 105.5) to the Slimline and didn't mind changing its design to do so, I would think changing the curvature of the reflector to move the focal point further away and using a longer LNB arm would allow for more room between the individual LNBs and resolve the spacing issue.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> So? Doesn't really have anything to do with my comment. Higher power increases EIRP, it doesn't change the gain of a dish.


The implication was that all that was needed was a slightly bigger dish, but clearly that's not the case. More power and better weather are apparently also required.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> The implication was that all that was needed was a slightly bigger dish, but clearly that's not the case. More power and better weather are apparently also required.


Hmmm...seems like you infered something I did not mean. What I said, speaking about Ka signals, was: "the shorter wavelength also means that a dish of a given size will provide more gain for Ka than for Ku, all else being equal." That is not to say that Ka can reliably be used for DTH transmission ONLY by virtue of that additional gain, it also takes higher transmitter power.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Yep;

The implication was not the higher dish gain at Ka frequencies would necessarily directly offset the need for any higher transmitter power, but would certainly help mitigate the level of power increase needed.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

Dude111 said:


> I hope they dont stop braodcasting thier SD stuff... Some of us DO NOT LIKE HD and dont want to pay for it!!


You probably saw a poorly set up in-store display or Dish Network. There is absolutely positively no way you would say that about a properly set up HDTV.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Just my two cents:

DirecTV went with Ka because they had it, and they put the HD on Ka instead of Ku, because if you're rolling out a new service, you put it on the new frequencies. Would have been monumentally stupid to try to put HD on Ku and move SD to Ka, necessitating a total swap of the entire install base. There's no reason HD can't (and won't) be on Ku eventually, frequency band and encoding (not modulating) schemes are completely independent.

And you'll know when DirecTV is about to start the transition, it'll be around two years after the date they stop installing new 101-only dishes and SD only set tops. As long as they're still installing 101 only dishes or SD only set tops, then the transition is a very long way away. They might still get away with 101-only dishes, if they were going to do a flash cut, but they will have to replace every single SD only set top box with an HD capable receiver, even if it's downconverting for an SD TV set, before they can move to all MPEG-4. Because at that point, what would be the point of having MPEG-4 SD only boxes and duplicating all that bandwidth. If you're going to distribute all those MPEG-4 boxes, might as well make them capable of decoding and downconverting HD and then you can drop half the encoders at the broadcast center, open up a TON of bandwidth, reduce the number of boxes you support, eliminate an installation call when a customer upgrades their TV, etc.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

they using Ka for HD because they must use Ka; because no bandwidth on Ku tpns for HD

it's much simpler then your convoluted logic


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

P Smith said:


> they using Ka for HD because they must use Ka; because no bandwidth on Ku tpns for HD
> 
> it's much simpler then your convoluted logic


Right, that's exactly what I said. Someone asked why not use Ku, or could they use Ku? Sure. The band used has nothing to do with the encoding scheme. Just 1s and 0s. They used Ka because that's what they had available, and it makes more sense than moving existing services around.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> ...it's much simpler then your convoluted logic


Seems to me that...



JosephB said:


> DirecTV went with Ka because they had it, and they put the HD on Ka instead of Ku, because if you're rolling out a new service, you put it on the new frequencies....


is saying the same thing as....


P Smith said:


> they using Ka for HD because they must use Ka; because no bandwidth on Ku tpns for HD


Nothing convoluted about it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

castrated presentation of original post to which I did reply make it unethical argument directed to a person , what actually must be adhere to the topic as I'm been reminded


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I think it is time to let this thread fade away.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JosephB said:


> And you'll know when DirecTV is about to start the transition, it'll be around two years after the date they stop installing new 101-only dishes and SD only set tops.


You'll know DIRECTV is on the move when they offer an MPEG4/8SVX/DVB-S2 box that has an RF modulator built in.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> You'll know DIRECTV is on the move when they offer an MPEG4/8SVX/DVB-S2 box that has an RF modulator built in.


I dont see that happening. Most any SDTV since about 1990 (other than the most basic, economy units) will have a composite in. My expectation would be that the techs would have external RF modulators on hand for when it is needed as it would be cheaper to do that than build into the boxes where one of a hundred might actually use it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> You'll know DIRECTV is on the move when they offer an MPEG4/*8SVX*/DVB-S2 box that has an RF modulator built in.


Lost me here;

Why the mention of "8SVX?" 

You mean the old "*8* bit *S*ampled *V*oice" format originally developed for Commodore-Amiga computers back in the '80s?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Perhaps he meant 8PSK?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

for the whole shabad "_MPEG4/*8SVX*/DVB-S2_" DTV is using own designators like "DSS-3" for transponders or "A3" for channels


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> You mean the old "*8* bit *S*ampled *V*oice" format originally developed for Commodore-Amiga computers back in the '80s?


I'm an Amigoid from waaaaaay back. I've made that slip more than once.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

harsh said:


> You'll know DIRECTV is on the move when they offer an MPEG4/8SVX/DVB-S2 box that has an RF modulator built in.


Yeah, that will be a pre-requisite, and will probably happen at the same time. Eventually there will be a new generation of boxes, who knows when. I would assume that's when they'll do it. Costs should have shifted enough that it'll be worth it to just give everyone an HD box instead of paying for development of a new SD box.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Why would they totally drop all standard sized programming?? (They are hurting themselves.... Having to use MUCH MORE BANDWIDTH to supply these larger views - Unless the BOX converts it to the larger size!!)

And alot of ppl DO NOT WANT IT!!!! - Standard Def IS FINE and always has been so why force those customers to see something THEY DONT WANT TO??


They will only shoot themselfs in the foot acting like this!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Dude111 said:


> Why would they totally drop all standard sized programming?? (They are hurting themselves.... Having to use MUCH MORE BANDWIDTH to supply these larger views - Unless the BOX converts it to the larger size!!)
> 
> And alot of ppl DO NOT WANT IT!!!! - Standard Def IS FINE and always has been so why force those customers to see something THEY DONT WANT TO??
> 
> They will only shoot themselfs in the foot acting like this!


they will use less bandwith as they will not have to simulcast the SD content, they will actually will gain baby
bandwidth by drooping SD all together

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> they will use less bandwith as they will not have to simulcast the SD content, they will actually will gain baby
> bandwidth by drooping SD all together


Being able to downconvert to SD at the box helps. It still leaves DirecTV with the task of replacing every receiver that is not capable of receiving the HD feeds. And changing out every dish that doesn't pick up the HD satellites. But once every SD customer can get the channels they subscribe to through HD downconvert the SDs can go.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

IF they had started this when the Spaceway sats went live, they would be much closer to being able to disabling the sd feeds.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

studechip said:


> IF they had started this when the Spaceway sats went live, they would be much closer to being able to disabling the sd feeds.


You mean back when 100% of Directv's customer base was SD and MPEG2 only? What could they have "started"? Automatically doing HD for every new install? That would have cost them a ton of money. The fact they still do SD only installs shows it is still cheaper for them even today.

Dude111's post also demonstrates that as with the MPG transition, there will be that tiny vocal minority that will complain and complain when the day comes that Directv puts up messages on SD only equipment informing them that Directv is going HD only and they need to call Directv for a free upgrade. There will be people coming here to post how they don't want HD's 16:9 picture, don't have HD televisions, don't want to replace their fast SD receivers with slow HD receivers, etc.

Directv has a monthly churn rate of around 1.5%, so every year nearly 20% of Directv subscribers at the start of the year are no longer Directv subscribers at the end of the year. Since they are still (slowly) adding total subscribers, that means they do nearly 4 million "new" installs every year. Undoubtedly some of them already had Directv and play the provider hopping game to get the best deals, but when these customers return to Directv an installer still visits their house. Due to the "free Genie" promotions, there are surely some former SD customers who come back to Directv as HD customers, so the churn upgrades customers beyond SD only customers calling up and asking Directv to upgrade them.

That's 4 million customer visits a year, not including other visits for repairs/upgrades. Based on that, Directv can probably get people upgraded at a fairly decent clip when they finally decide to do so. In the meantime, customers are upgrading themselves and making the problem smaller every month. I wish Directv provided more detailed information about their customer mix in their investor calls, but I'm sure they'll begin doing so once they announce the start of the MPEG2 transition.


----------



## samrs (May 30, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> You mean back when 100% of Directv's customer base was SD and MPEG2 only? What could they have "started"? Automatically doing HD for every new install? That would have cost them a ton of money. The fact they still do SD only installs shows it is still cheaper for them even today.


It's not like that. SD installs either didn't make the credit cut or were smart enough to avoid the Advanced Receiver Fee.

I install plenty of Genies and Clients with RF modulators.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If every DirecTV customer would take their turn and leave DirecTV would turn over their 20.253 million subscribers in 5.59 years. But it seems that the deal chasers who go back and forth between providers are a particular subset. I think of them as the same 16 million customers of whom at any given time 8 million are waiting for their DirecTV contract to end so they can leave and the other 8 million are waiting for their present provider contract to end so they can come back. (DirecTV lost around 3.6 million subscribers each of the last two years and gained around 3.8 million over the past two years.)

The other 12 million subscribers are the problem. Some may volunteer to pay for an upgrade to HD equipment or take a special deal but there is a core group of "I've been with DirecTV forever" subscribers are not cycling out or getting their receivers and dishes replaced.

If DirecTV is serious about ending SD service or at least converting all service to MPEG4 something needs to be done for the core customers. But based on DirecTV's actions, still installing SD only equipment and still penalizing HD subscribers with a technology fee, I don't see such a conversion to be a priority.

Providing SD in MPEG4 is possible (see the PI channels on "HD" satellites). So the complaints from customers not wanting to downconvert 16x9 can be met by continuing to deliver the 4x3 feeds. DISH does this with their MPEG4 "Eastern Arc" service. SD in MPEG4 doesn't take up a lot of room on a satellite. But getting customers to change equipment when there is a financial incentive in place NOT to change equipment is an uphill battle.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Providing SD in MPEG4 is possible (see the PI channels on "HD" satellites). So the complaints from customers not wanting to downconvert 16x9 can be met by continuing to deliver the 4x3 feeds. DISH does this with their MPEG4 "Eastern Arc" service. SD in MPEG4 doesn't take up a lot of room on a satellite. But getting customers to change equipment when there is a financial incentive in place NOT to change equipment is an uphill battle.


I believe Directv's plan is not to have MPEG4 HD and MPEG4 SD, but to have MPEG4 HD and have customers with SD TVs view it letterbox or vertically stretched.

More and more national channels are made available only in 16:9 HD. ESPN, for instance. It doesn't make sense to try to provide something to customers that Directv won't be able to get upstream for very much longer.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

samrs said:


> It's not like that. SD installs either didn't make the credit cut or were smart enough to avoid the Advanced Receiver Fee.
> 
> I install plenty of Genies and Clients with RF modulators.


When you do a SD install, do you install the HD dish? SWM? If Directv was doing that, at least upgrading SD only customers would not require an installer to visit, but just ship them replacement receivers.

I can totally understand installing clients with an RF modulator (guest bedroom or workout room) but installing a Genie on a TV so old it doesn't even have RCA inputs? That seems crazy to me, given how cheap a 26" TV is (which is about as big a TV ever made that has only RF input) I can understand people being cheap, but if you can afford the $25 ARF you can surely drop the $150 the 26" HDTV costs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

As I have said many times, when they begin to offer certain sports packages like center ice in Hi Definition only that's the sign they have begun the slow process of killing off sd.


----------



## samrs (May 30, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> When you do a SD install, do you install the HD dish? SWM? If Directv was doing that, at least upgrading SD only customers would not require an installer to visit, but just ship them replacement receivers.
> 
> I can totally understand installing clients with an RF modulator (guest bedroom or workout room) but installing a Genie on a TV so old it doesn't even have RCA inputs? That seems crazy to me, given how cheap a 26" TV is (which is about as big a TV ever made that has only RF input) I can understand people being cheap, but if you can afford the $25 ARF you can surely drop the $150 the 26" HDTV costs.


If they have a land line phone they are likely to get a Slimline with a SWiM LNB, otherwise they get whats on the workorder a round or triplesat dish. SWiM LNBs are expensive. The ones I use on SD installs are all used.

DirecTv's upfront offer is a Genie and Clients, folks that don't pay attention get sucked into the ARF. Those same folks won't replace anything till it breaks, like a 26" floor model Zenith with a crappy picture. Then when it breaks and they pick up an equal size model to sit on top of the old CRT they still use the RF modulator to hook it up.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> As I have said many times, when they begin to offer certain sports packages like center ice in Hi Definition only that's the sign they have begun the slow process of killing off sd.


maybe stuff that is not RSN remaps going HD only but some sports bars still are SD only and have NFL ST.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And again. When DIRECTV starts saying it will be only in Hi Definition this Coming season and they force everyone who wants it to go Hi Definition that will be the beginning. 

Basically the same idea and process behind the move to all mpeg4 Hi Definition instead of mpeg2 Hi Definition. They started with the league passes. 

Those bars who are still only sd will have to upgrade at that time. 

This isn't going to happen till they feel the new Hi Definition boxes are cheap enough they can afford to get them to existing customers or free.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Dude111 said:


> Why would they totally drop all standard sized programming??


DIRECTV has reduced the quality of SD to the point that it is approaching insufferable on HD displays, the government decreed standard television for seven years. Combine this with the business decision to put most (but not all) of the English language SD content on one orbital slot and there's no going back.

16x9 HD content, for years the "standard sized programming", can be readily downscaled to a better than SD channel image but the converse is not true. 16x9 SD content satisfies very few.

This is why they must drop all SD programming that has an HD counterpart.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And again. When DIRECTV starts saying it will be only in Hi Definition this Coming season and they force everyone who wants it to go Hi Definition that will be the beginning.


Yet they drag their feet by continuing to install SD setups. They even offer free SD DVRs where they charge $199 for conventional HD DVRs! Hardly a sign of a company committed to advancing an agenda of HD conversion.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> Yet they drag their feet by continuing to install SD setups. They even offer free SD DVRs where they charge $199 for conventional HD DVRs! Hardly a sign of a company committed to advancing an agenda of HD conversion.


Well you may consider it "foot-dragging" harsh;

But apparently the accountants and number crunchers at DIRECTV see it as less expensive to continue the current simultaneous Ka HD- Ka SD model for now.

If DIRECTV were truly interested in starting the transition in earnest to phase out Ku/MPEG-2 SD feeds, we should see more substantial evidence of it with things such as say mandating the installation HD capable receivers for all new SD installs and eliminate the D12 and R16. This way at least it's just a matter of returning to upgrade the ODU whenever the step-up to HD service is decided by the customer.

But continuing the distribution of SD only receivers as they are now is only going to make a transition that much more expensive, therefore I expect the current status quo to be around for many more years.as the cost of transition is still quite prohibitive I guess.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think the evidence will be in the next generation of receivers. There was talk about a Lego system they use in Latin America here in the us. I'll bet it's significantly cheaper than the current h24 and HR24 etc. but time will tell.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> If DIRECTV were truly interested in starting the transition in earnest to phase out Ku/MPEG-2 SD feeds, we should see more substantial evidence of it with things such as say mandating the installation HD capable receivers for all new SD installs and eliminate the D12 and R16. This way at least it's just a matter of returning to upgrade the ODU whenever the step-up to HD service is decided by the customer.
> 
> But continuing the distribution of SD only receivers as they are now is only going to make a transition that much more expensive, therefore I expect the current status quo to be around for many more years.as the cost of transition is still quite prohibitive I guess.


I think they'd want to do it the other way around. Install SL3S/SL5S for everyone, but give SD only customers D12/R16s. That way when they do want to/are forced to upgrade to HD, Directv just ships them new receivers, and no installer visit is required.

I don't think distributing SD only receivers makes the transition more expensive than giving them HD receivers now. If they give a customer a SD receiver it essentially costs them nothing. They're fully depreciated and they've probably got warehouses full of them. I'll bet they stopped making new ones long ago (maybe an installer could comment on the newest manufacturing date seen for a D12?)

If they give that Sd customer a HD receiver, that's one more HD receiver they have to make. Even if he gets a used receiver, someone else who would have got that used receiver must get a new one that has to be built.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> Providing SD in MPEG4 is possible (see the PI channels on "HD" satellites). So the complaints from customers not wanting to downconvert 16x9 can be met by continuing to deliver the 4x3 feeds. DISH does this with their MPEG4 "Eastern Arc" service. SD in MPEG4 doesn't take up a lot of room on a satellite. But getting customers to change equipment when there is a financial incentive in place NOT to change equipment is an uphill battle.


Quite so on the disincentive!

Heh: There will be complaints! "The picture is much clearer than before, but I don't like it....."


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> I think the evidence will be in the next generation of receivers. There was talk about a Lego system they use in Latin America here in the us. I'll bet it's significantly cheaper than the current h24 and HR24 etc. but time will tell.


I think the foundation for an all-MPEG4/Ka system comes with the next generation of receivers. The cost of just giving everyone an HD-capable box that will down convert can't be that much higher, if it is at all, than developing two lines of boxes again, especially factoring in costs over the life of the boxes.

Also at some point the savings in warehouse space and administrative costs to have two (or three) satellite dishes in inventory will push them to install SL3/SL5s for everyone regardless of service level.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has reduced the quality of SD to the point that it is approaching insufferable on HD displays, the government decreed standard television for seven years.


No such decree. Absolutely not. FCC standards for broadcast television include SD and other less than HD formats.

ATSC tuners must be able to tune the approved formats for OTA broadcasting, which includes SD. But there is absolutely no standard or regulation decreeing that TV be transmitted in HD or displayed in HD. Period.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Quite so on the disincentive!
> 
> Heh: There will be complaints! "The picture is much clearer than before, but I don't like it....."


Some networks have decided to stretch their SD to fill a HD screen. The stretch is not always proportional and can include a crop causing a situation where it cannot be "unstretched" for a 4x3 display. Having the original 4x3 is preferable.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> install SL3/SL5s for everyone regardless of service level.


You are getting somewhere....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Well you may consider it "foot-dragging" harsh;


A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I think it will ultimately reflect badly on the company that they're delivering such a non-excellent product to some new subscribers for a measly monthly savings ($10?).

Bean counters often don't evaluate such difficult concepts as goodwill particularly well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> No such decree. Absolutely not. FCC standards for broadcast television include SD and other less than HD formats.


While there is no decree regarding broadcast TV signals, there was a decree back in the last decade that all TVs of a certain size be capable of handing HD content in some fashion to be sold in the US market. It was phased in over two or three years starting with large TVs in 2005 as I recall.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
> 
> I think it will ultimately reflect badly on the company that they're delivering such a non-excellent product to some new subscribers for a measly monthly savings ($10?).
> 
> Bean counters often don't evaluate such difficult concepts as goodwill particularly well.


Directv's SD may look pretty bad on a HD set, especially when we're mentally comparing it to HD. How does it look on a CRT TV that's probably at least 10 years old, maybe more? There's going to be much less difference between crappy SD and good SD on an old analog set that doesn't have all that great of a picture in the first place. Yes, you could buy high end CRTs that had a pretty good picture, but people willing to spend money on a better picture have converted to HD by now, so the SD sets still in use are mostly low end.

Crappy SD quality is more of a problem for SD only channels that HD customers are watching on a HD TV. Presumably they'll address that when the new satellites launch, either by carrying those channels in HD (if available) or converting them to MPEG4 as Directv may already be doing on a small scale (see the thread on JLTV moving from MPEG2 on 119 to MPEG4 on 103 recently)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> While there is no decree regarding broadcast TV signals, there was a decree back in the last decade that all TVs of a certain size be capable of handing HD content in some fashion to be sold in the US market. It was phased in over two or three years starting with large TVs in 2005 as I recall.


Your statement was "HD displays, the government decreed standard television". The tuner requirement on TVs, which was phased in from large to small, DID NOT require a HD display. A HD display is *NOT* a government decreed standard.

(And, as previously explained, non-HD formats remain part of the tuner requirement.)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> While there is no decree regarding broadcast TV signals, there was a decree back in the last decade that all TVs of a certain size be capable of handing HD content in some fashion to be sold in the US market. It was phased in over two or three years starting with large TVs in 2005 as I recall.


Do you have a link to that ruling? I know of laws that require TV's larger than 13 inches to have V-Chips and to support closed captions, and all TVs have to have ATSC tuners (which means they must RECEIVE SD, ED and HD formats), but I know of no law that requires them to have an HD display. It is perfectly legal to build a 32" 640x480i TV as long as it downconverts any broadcast signal to that screen. (Of course, good luck getting anyone to buy it)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Do you have a link to that ruling? I know of laws that require TV's larger than 13 inches to have V-Chips and to support closed captions, and all TVs have to have ATSC tuners (which means they must RECEIVE SD, ED and HD formats), but I know of no law that requires them to have an HD display. It is perfectly legal to build a 32" 640x480i TV as long as it downconverts any broadcast signal to that screen. (Of course, good luck getting anyone to buy it)


Given that I have a couple 42" Panny plasmas purchased in 2005 that have a 480p display, pretty sure you're absolutely correct!

They cost $1700/ea, and the next step up model that did 720p was nearly $4000 at the time. You had to go to 50" to get their 1080p model, but I have no idea what it cost. How quickly things have changed...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Do you have a link to that ruling? I know of laws that require TV's larger than 13 inches to have V-Chips and to support closed captions, and all TVs have to have ATSC tuners (which means they must RECEIVE SD, ED and HD formats), but I know of no law that requires them to have an HD display. It is perfectly legal to build a 32" 640x480i TV as long as it downconverts any broadcast signal to that screen. (Of course, good luck getting anyone to buy it)


Yep, that was about receiving, not displaying.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Directv's SD may look pretty bad on a HD set, especially when we're mentally comparing it to HD. How does it look on a CRT TV that's probably at least 10 years old, maybe more? There's going to be much less difference between crappy SD and good SD on an old analog set that doesn't have all that great of a picture in the first place. Yes, you could buy high end CRTs that had a pretty good picture, but people willing to spend money on a better picture have converted to HD by now, so the SD sets still in use are mostly low end.
> 
> Crappy SD quality is more of a problem for SD only channels that HD customers are watching on a HD TV. Presumably they'll address that when the new satellites launch, either by carrying those channels in HD (if available) or converting them to MPEG4 as Directv may already be doing on a small scale (see the thread on JLTV moving from MPEG2 on 119 to MPEG4 on 103 recently)


I used a HD receiver with a 21 in. SD CRT TV for several years (I finally replaced it a few months ago). The difference between the MPEG2 SD channels and the HD version of the same channels on that set was quite noticeable. One of our remaining SD locals is MPEG4 and it looked nearly as good as the HD channels, being less starved for bandwidth than the channels on 101.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

James Long said:


> Being able to downconvert to SD at the box helps. It still leaves DirecTV with the task of replacing every receiver that is not capable of receiving the HD feeds. And changing out every dish that doesn't pick up the HD satellites. But once every SD customer can get the channels they subscribe to through HD downconvert the SDs can go.


Ya buddy and if this ever does happen that will be the time I cancel.... I hardily watch it now Jim.... They keep suspending my service I think because I am not paying them for a box! (I have my own) -- Its really strange as THEY FINALLY SAID OK THEY WOULD REACTIVATE IT FOR ME... (In january) Now they are doing this BS.. (Its happend 4 times so far since February)

I dont like greedy people and it just shows how they want everyone renting thier crappy boxs!! (They cant stand someone like me who has thier own mind and is holding out -- They want me to pay the monthly fee and I really dispise that!!)

I already pay 53 dollars AT LEAST per month and I hardily watch anything on it!!

I love DirecTV James,i have been with them since 1997


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Dude111 said:


> They keep suspending my service I think because I am not paying them for a box! (I have my own)


Owning or leasing a box does not determines if you pay a monthly fee. first box is included in the package and any other after the first carries a fee wether leased or owned.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Dude111 said:


> (Its happend 4 times so far since February)


Loks like you don't take the hint....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

He's got an mpg box.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Regardless of the type of box he has, the first one carries no monthly charge. Even if they swapped out his old one and gave him a new dish, I doubt Directv would charge him for the new equipment, much less charge him monthly. Some people are only happy when they are miserable.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Its probably the activation system which keeps kicking Dude's receiver off after doing routine management and housekeeping scans as its instructed since those old MPG boxes are obsolete and should be turned off. DIRECTV should never have relented and reactivated it in the first place and the system should have been designed to prevent it.

Dude is just being unnecessarily difficult on this issue, to put it mildly.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yep. We know he has no guide data so now there's no way he can say the guide is better in his old box or anything if that nature. It's quite humorous.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> He's got an mpg box.


NO I HAVE AN APG BOX!!!!!

I have an RCA DRD 430rg -- ITS AN APG BOX  (Otherwise I wouldnt get anything)



> Its probably the activation system which keeps kicking Dude's receiver off after doing routine management and housekeeping scans as its instructed since those old MPG boxes are obsolete and should be turned off.


Ya maybe your right,I think the box listed on my account IS AN MPG BOX.. (The box I actually have is an APG box)

But you would think If they keep seeing me re-activating it THEY WOULD KNOW I AM GETTING PROGRAMMING!! (i dunno)

I dont like thier box,its not as fast,its not as nice as my RCA 430 (Which Im glad I found to replace my MPG box (RCA DRD 420re))


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

There was another user who said that DirecTV had the MPG version of his model listed in his account instead of the APG version and had the same problem as a result.

If you login to your DirecTV account and go to My Equipment what does it say under Model?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

should we check if MPG's PIDs still carry legacy EPG ?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Dude111 said:


> NO I HAVE AN APG BOX!!!!!
> 
> I have an RCA DRD 430rg -- ITS AN APG BOX  (Otherwise I wouldnt get anything)
> 
> ...


All of those tenths of a second really add up, don't they.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

KyL416 said:


> If you login to your DirecTV account and go to My Equipment what does it say under Model?


Yup it has my RCA 420 listed...... I dont know why they didnt update it to my RCA 430,quite strange....... I guess I can update that myself...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Dude111 said:


> Yup it has my RCA 420 listed...... I dont know why they didnt update it to my RCA 430,quite strange....... I guess I can update that myself...


Nope;

You can change things such as the listed location of a receiver, but not the model number of it.

That has to be done on DIRECTV's end, and a CSR may not be able to do it either. But may be a system problem with properly identifying that older receiver model.


----------

