ECHOSTAR 11 RESTRICTED BY FCC !!
- Thread starter nelson61
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 10K
Background:
Spectrum Five has been granted license for 114.5 +/-.
Echostar 8 has priority license at 110 and Spectrum Five can not interfere with E8. Then Spectrum Five got their license and has priority over any signal that exceeds E8 power level. Then the E11 higher power satellite got it's license and now has to guarantee non-interference over any power level above that used on E8.
The FCC requirement is a conditional one:
If P, and if Q, then Echostar 11 must modify its operations.
But, as of present, conditions P and Q do not obtain, so there is no current restriction placed on the operation of E* 11.
If P, and if Q, then Echostar 11 must modify its operations.
But, as of present, conditions P and Q do not obtain, so there is no current restriction placed on the operation of E* 11.
A very real issue for Dish when Spectrum launches their satellites. Sprectrum has permits to broadcast into the United States and the FCC has ruled that any interference above the level that E8 produced will not be allowed. When you plant a new satellite between 110 and 119 and are using a multisatellite dish for 110/119, interference can indeed occur. Dish was asleep at the switch when they did not file new applications for higher power on E11 long before it was needed.
Launches their satellites? I couldn't find any news of Spectrum Five contracting to build a satellite yet.
What effect would that have on Dish? In other words, what can't E11 do that it was supposed to do?
Agenda here?
Dish says Spectrum Five did not demonstrate that their sat would not interfere with E8 and also stated that a design change would be required by Spectrum to make sure that did not happen. Spectrum did not do this so Dish went forward with E11. Now Spectrum, which I cannot find any info on and see no plans anytime soon to construct and launch a satellite, is abusing the system for what purpose? Does DirecTV have stock in Spectrum Five?
Where are any links to this company?
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2439A1.pdf
Here is the link to the orignal filing for spectrum 5.. BTW other than the FCC there is nothing known about this company? Maybe this is XstreamHD?
Here is the link to the orignal filing for spectrum 5.. BTW other than the FCC there is nothing known about this company? Maybe this is XstreamHD?
XstreamHD looks like an IP solution - funny though, I was reading up on them and look what I found:
Michael Scott
Vice President, Engineering
Didn't he work for Dunder Mifflin?
Spectrum Five was acquired by General Dynamics a few years back. I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to leverage a deal with Dish to lease space on their satellites. I believe their plan was to deploy two satellites at 114.5 W, I think because they have a history of producing smaller satellites.
The company appears to be based out of the Netherlands from what I can tell in the filings. The only other thing that I could find about them is that they seem to claim to have invented or are associated with the inventor of spotbeams.
(WO/2007/047159) SATELLITES AND SIGNAL DISTRIBUTION METHODS AND OFF-SET PATTERN FOR SENDING SIGNALS
No, the licensing for the DBS slot is through the Netherlands, the company is actually based in Arizona.
Maybe Spectrum Five's endgame is to have E* buy their 114.5 slot. Why in the world did the FCC ever approve that slot for DBS anyway?
Brad
Spectrum Five still has a lot of work to do before they can even try to pursue some action against Echostar.
In the orginal filing, it was found that Spectrum Fives two Proposed statellites would interefere with E* and D* satellites in the 110 and 119 orbitals causing as much reduction in their signals as 17db. Spectrum said they would lower their power output and use larger dishes to mitigate this interference.
Later in the filing:
Given Spectrum Five’s stated willingness to tolerate additional interference and use larger-than-average DBS receive dishes, we are satisfied that granting the Spectrum Five Petitions on the condition that it coordinate with EchoStar and DIRECTV will protect those existing operations. Specifically, Spectrum 5 shall not operate the feeder links and service links originating or terminating in the United States on its Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B satellites in a manner that exceeds the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations that trigger the agreement-seeking process under No. 4.2 of Appendices 30 and 30A at any location within the service areas of any affected operators that lie within the territory of the United States, until Spectrum Five has obtained the agreement of those operators. We also require Spectrum Five to submit evidence of these agreements to the Commission. Spectrum Five’s satellite operations are not guaranteed protection from interference from other systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations unless and until the Region 2 BSS Plan and its associated feeder link Plan are modified to include the technical parameters of Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B. EchoStar’s and DIRECTV’s concerns regarding the impact of Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B on their future operations can be addressed in the coordination negotiations.
Also:
Section 25.148(b) of the Commission’s rules establishes a milestone schedule for DBS authorization holders in order to ensure that entities exercise due diligence in constructing their systems. According to this schedule, authorization holders must complete contracting for all system satellites within one year of grant; complete construction of the first satellite in the system within four years of grant; and all satellites in the system must be in operation within six years of grant. We require that Spectrum Five adhere to this milestone schedule. We also require that Spectrum Five complete its critical design review (CDR) two years after this grant. The Commission has defined critical design review as “the stage in the spacecraft implementation process at which the design and development phase ends and the manufacturing phase starts.”
Where is any of this info the commission required?
They might have a license but they still have a lot to demonstrate before they can make any demands on E* or D*.
In the orginal filing, it was found that Spectrum Fives two Proposed statellites would interefere with E* and D* satellites in the 110 and 119 orbitals causing as much reduction in their signals as 17db. Spectrum said they would lower their power output and use larger dishes to mitigate this interference.
Later in the filing:
Given Spectrum Five’s stated willingness to tolerate additional interference and use larger-than-average DBS receive dishes, we are satisfied that granting the Spectrum Five Petitions on the condition that it coordinate with EchoStar and DIRECTV will protect those existing operations. Specifically, Spectrum 5 shall not operate the feeder links and service links originating or terminating in the United States on its Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B satellites in a manner that exceeds the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations that trigger the agreement-seeking process under No. 4.2 of Appendices 30 and 30A at any location within the service areas of any affected operators that lie within the territory of the United States, until Spectrum Five has obtained the agreement of those operators. We also require Spectrum Five to submit evidence of these agreements to the Commission. Spectrum Five’s satellite operations are not guaranteed protection from interference from other systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations unless and until the Region 2 BSS Plan and its associated feeder link Plan are modified to include the technical parameters of Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B. EchoStar’s and DIRECTV’s concerns regarding the impact of Spectrum 1A and Spectrum 1B on their future operations can be addressed in the coordination negotiations.
Also:
Section 25.148(b) of the Commission’s rules establishes a milestone schedule for DBS authorization holders in order to ensure that entities exercise due diligence in constructing their systems. According to this schedule, authorization holders must complete contracting for all system satellites within one year of grant; complete construction of the first satellite in the system within four years of grant; and all satellites in the system must be in operation within six years of grant. We require that Spectrum Five adhere to this milestone schedule. We also require that Spectrum Five complete its critical design review (CDR) two years after this grant. The Commission has defined critical design review as “the stage in the spacecraft implementation process at which the design and development phase ends and the manufacturing phase starts.”
Where is any of this info the commission required?
They might have a license but they still have a lot to demonstrate before they can make any demands on E* or D*.
Are you sure that you aren't thinking about Spectrum Astro? General Dynamics Completes Acquisition of Spectrum Astro, Inc.
Still cannot find any info about Spectrum Five, LLC.
From the same original filing:
The orbital spacing between DBS satellites serving the same geographic area, combined with both the satellite transmit characteristics and receive earth station antenna performance, determines the amount of interference a DBS system will receive. The Commission took notice of the possibility of reduced-spacing DBS satellites in 2002. In the Part 100 Order, the Commission stated that provision of service “into the United States from future entrants such as non-U.S. DBS satellites could result in smaller satellite spacing than the current nine-degree separation between U.S. DBS orbital locations.” Also in the Part 100 Order, the Commission adopted Section 25.114(c)(22)(i), which required that applicants provide sufficient technical showings that their proposed systems could operate satisfactorily if all assignments in the BSS and feeder-link Plans are implemented, and Section 25.114(c)(22)(ii), which required that applicants provide analyses of the proposed system with respect to the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations. The Commission also adopted Section 25.148(f), which states that operation of DBS systems with characteristics differing from those in the Appendix 30 and 30A plans may be permitted with adequate technical showing, and if a request has been made to the ITU to modify the appropriate Plans to include the system’s technical parameters. The Commission also stated that in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations, other countries wishing to serve the United States will normally have to modify their assignments in the ITU BSS and feeder-link Plans to allow them to provide service in the United States. The ITU modification process will identify the U.S. DBS systems that are affected by the proposed Plan modification of another administration, giving the United States an opportunity to work with the subject administration to ensure that no modification is made that will cause harmful interference to U.S. DBS systems.
E* and D* at that time objected because Spectrum Five presented none of this required info but Spectrum argued that they would "comply" with the requirements of the Region 2 BSS plan from the 1980's. Then when the results of their proposed spotbeams was revealed, they said they would reduce power and use larger customer dishes.
The orbital spacing between DBS satellites serving the same geographic area, combined with both the satellite transmit characteristics and receive earth station antenna performance, determines the amount of interference a DBS system will receive. The Commission took notice of the possibility of reduced-spacing DBS satellites in 2002. In the Part 100 Order, the Commission stated that provision of service “into the United States from future entrants such as non-U.S. DBS satellites could result in smaller satellite spacing than the current nine-degree separation between U.S. DBS orbital locations.” Also in the Part 100 Order, the Commission adopted Section 25.114(c)(22)(i), which required that applicants provide sufficient technical showings that their proposed systems could operate satisfactorily if all assignments in the BSS and feeder-link Plans are implemented, and Section 25.114(c)(22)(ii), which required that applicants provide analyses of the proposed system with respect to the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations. The Commission also adopted Section 25.148(f), which states that operation of DBS systems with characteristics differing from those in the Appendix 30 and 30A plans may be permitted with adequate technical showing, and if a request has been made to the ITU to modify the appropriate Plans to include the system’s technical parameters. The Commission also stated that in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations, other countries wishing to serve the United States will normally have to modify their assignments in the ITU BSS and feeder-link Plans to allow them to provide service in the United States. The ITU modification process will identify the U.S. DBS systems that are affected by the proposed Plan modification of another administration, giving the United States an opportunity to work with the subject administration to ensure that no modification is made that will cause harmful interference to U.S. DBS systems.
E* and D* at that time objected because Spectrum Five presented none of this required info but Spectrum argued that they would "comply" with the requirements of the Region 2 BSS plan from the 1980's. Then when the results of their proposed spotbeams was revealed, they said they would reduce power and use larger customer dishes.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
M
-
T
-
