DirecTV Eyes SES Service at 105 Degrees (1 Viewer)

Stargazer

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
16,563
338
Western WV
Wasn't SES going to have some differences in which would prevent it from having interference with 101 and 110 DBS satellites such as left-hand circular polarization.

If this were the case then the lnbf's we currently have that we use on DirecTv and Dish Network would not work unless you had a dual reflector (like the torodial dishes for picking up multiple orbitatal locations as a one dish soution) where you have one reflector in front of the other one. When the signal hits the reflector it changes direction from right to left or from left to right.
 

Cyclone

Proud Stiff Member
Supporting Founder
Sep 9, 2003
2,586
14
Maryland
I wish the DBSs would quit trying to co-occupy the same slots. This forces them to have to use more slots to carry a certain quanity of transponders. Hence we have to have goofy 1/2/3 satellite capable dishes, or even more than one dish.

If D* had all of the 119 TP, E* the 110, and V* the 61.5 then that would have made life easier.
 

fv3

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 8, 2003
119
0
Cyclone said:
I wish the DBSs would quit trying to co-occupy the same slots. This forces them to have to use more slots to carry a certain quanity of transponders. Hence we have to have goofy 1/2/3 satellite capable dishes, or even more than one dish.

If D* had all of the 119 TP, E* the 110, and V* the 61.5 then that would have made life easier.

I don't think D* is deliberately trying to occupy the same slots as E*. They are just desperate for bandwidth anywhere they can get it (the closer to the core slots the better) and SES is willing to offer them some transponders at 105.

By the way, E* is using more than a single orbital slot's worth of transponders, even taking duplication into account... So totally occupying just one slot would still leave them needing more bandwidth....

Don't blame E* and D* for this. Blame the FCC....


I think this is interesting because it means that E* did not lease ALL the transponders at 105....

Regarding the polarization question, AMC-2 currently uses linear polarization. AMC-15 (the replacement) uses circular polarization.

All you have to do to provide more space to fit in the LNBFs (for tighter orbital spacing) is move the focal point(s) of the reflector further out. [not addressing adjacent bird interference here, just the physical LNB interference....] Make the reflector "flatter" and the support arm longer....
 

Stargazer

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
16,563
338
Western WV
DirecTV currently uses three orbital locations as it is, 101, 110, 119 that are close together and by adding 105 to the mix that would make them four, the same as Dish Network, that are close together in which can have a one dish solution (105, 110, 119, 121). Dish Network still has more bandwidth available at their four orbital locations that could have a one dish solution, then Dish Network has 61.5, 148, etc. to boot.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Stargazer,

The title is a bit misleading. DirecTV is opposed to SES Americom providing service at the 105 slot because of possible interference. DirecTV doesn't want to use 105 themselves; DirecTV doesn't want anyone to use 105.
 

Ken_F

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 11, 2003
95
0
DirecTV's petition to the FCC, which discusses their objections to the use of 105.5 degrees, can be found right here (PDF document). It's a good read.

Credit for the link goes to the this thread over on the DBS Forums; they've also got some additional discussion on the topic. Quoting page from page 5 of the PDF document:
DIRECTV submits that it is now time for the Commission to undertake a thorough and systematic analysis in a rulemaking proceeding of the implications of reduced orbital spacing for DBS satellites serving, or proposing to serve, the United States at 12 GHz. As the Commission anticipated, potential foreign BSS entrants have begun, in an uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion, to challenge the Commission’s longstanding nine-degree spacing policy. SES Americom, Inc. (“SES”), for example, has filed a petition for declaratory ruling to provide service to the United States from a proposed U.K -filed modification to the Region 2 BSS Plan at 105.5, in between US assignments at 101 WL and 110 WL - that is, 4.5 degrees away from five high-power DBS satellites, including one state-of-the-art spot-beam satellite that DIRECTV uses to serve more than eleven million US consumers.

Furthermore, SES's proposed entry into the United States at 105.5 WL is not an isolated proposal. Foreign administrations, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, now have proposed Region 2 Plan modifications proposing U.S. coverage at 96.5 WL, 114.5 WL, 125 WL, and 127 WL. And although initially opposed to the SES proposal, EchoStar Satellite Corporation ("EchoStar"), a major U.S. domestic DBS operator, now has joined the fray, filing applications for authority to operate DBS satellites from 86.5 W.L., 96.5 W.L., 114.5 W.L., and 123.5" W.L.

Although DIRECTV opposed the SES Petition, it has no categorical objection to a connsideration of tweener DBS satellites at reduced orbital spacing. Indeed, DIRECTV itself in 1997 proposed 4.5 degree-spaced DBS satellites in spectrum allocated for DBS use at 17 GHz when that spectrum becomcs available in 2007. However, any decision to insert short-spaced DBS satellites serving the United States into the arc must be supported by a comprehensive technical record, and not effectuated through a series of piecemeal “landing rights” or licensing adjudications or unrelated, “one-off” coordinations with other administrations. The Commission has acknowledged repeatedly that a rulemaking proceeding “is generally a better, fairer and more effective method of implementing a new industry-wide policy than is the ad hoc and potentially uneven application of conditions in isolated proceedings affecting or favoring a single party. And a rulemaking proceeding is specifically the approach thc Commission has taken in the past -- wisely in DIRECTV’s view -- regarding fundamental changes to or implementations of orbital spacing policy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top