Echostar 14 update
- Thread starter nelson61
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 449
- Views 84K
Interesting question for us hardware buffs. I think they could convert a 301 into a 311 by swapping out the tuner module. If the form factor isn't identical already, I'll bet there are enough 301s out there to make a special run of 8PSK tuners that would be.
It may be depending on if there's a pin compatible chipset to swap out. Depending on how many are out there, they could probably get such a chipset custom fabbed.
EDIT: Probably not cost effective in the US, but this kind of refurbishing work could probably be cost effective overseas.
I know quite a few of the later SD DVR's are. The rebadged older 811's are. 311's etc.
I think we will start to see the higher tier channels move to 8PSK probably by the end of this year. Or quite possibly they will do it by DMA's. There are already some DMA's requiring 8PSK receivers even though they are SD MPEG2.
The only other possibility for saving these receivers is to ship them to another country that's still using QPSK mpeg-2. Mexico perhaps? This would need new firmware, which process is nearly free. Another possiblity is a reflash to turn them into FTA receivers. 
It isn't cost effective for two truck rolls though. If they are going to go through the effort of getting a customer to 8psk they are going to go mpeg4 too. If I remember correctly in those new dma's that required 8psk they also required mpeg4 even though the channels were mpeg2.
time for new receiver
It's time for them to come out with a VIP 111K. Just a plain simple single tuner single output that has composte, RF, & HDMI/component out.
It's time for them to come out with a VIP 111K. Just a plain simple single tuner single output that has composte, RF, & HDMI/component out.
It's probably cheaper just to continue with their existing receiver offerings since they've probably made enough of them now that they've justified their R&D as well as tooling expenses.
Each time you create a new product you have to pay a fair deal of up front costs to start manufacturing products. The more product you make, the more you dilute those costs.
Each time you create a new product you have to pay a fair deal of up front costs to start manufacturing products. The more product you make, the more you dilute those costs.
It took them one week to do what it took Direct months to do. One has to question if there are any costs to doing something so quickly? Sometimes it is better to do something right vs fast.
Last edited:
It probably used more fuel to get it to its current position so quickly, but I don't think there is a right vs. fast argument here. It is either at its correct position or not. It can be both right and fast.
And how much fuel, pray tell, did they use? Did they GREATLY diminish the life span of the satellite? I doubt it.
If you compute the fuel use ahead of time in the 'expected lifespan' then it may be a non-issue.
I don't know. That is why my point was in the form of a question in my first post and a conditional statement in my second. Comparing 2 months to 1 week, that is a huge difference.
Sometimes, when you're using the right hardware, it is OK to go fast.
The SS/L FS-1300 is different in a number of respects from the Boeing 702HP. In addition to the station keeping ion setup similar to that of the 702, the FS-1300 also has a bipropellant engine for major moves. Rapidly moving the bird around doesn't deplete the ion system as always seems to be an overriding concern with rushing the Boeing birds.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
Teardown video/photos of Hopper 3 or similar receivers- Latest: cpdretired
-
-
