Lots of RV/Boat Customers are going to be UPSET (1 Viewer)

Status
Please reply by conversation.

raoul5788

Studebaker driver
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 28, 2004
30,140
13,839
Cheshire CT
Exactly, Directv is not going to make things any easier for Dish especially When bandwidth is already at a premium.

Only way I could see transponders given to Dish would be for wireless spectrum given to ATT in exchange.

Dish would rather have transponder space and ATT would rather have wireless frequencies.

What I never got with Directv is why they never required 110/119 as part of a standard install.

You install a slimline Dish, what difference and cost is it to use a SL3 vs a SL5 Dish
They did, if your local sd channels were on 119. That changed a while ago as I see many SL3 installs here where the sd locals are still on 119.
 

HoTat2

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 12, 2012
1,272
323
Los Angeles, CA.
It's as slice said ...

There are LOS problems with 119, particularly for subscribers in the NE part of the country where the 119 slot appears very low on the horizon.

Where almost any reasonbly tall obstruction along the same SE path to the satellite as the subscriber would block reception.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,388
597
IA
I assume the problems with receiving 119 in the NE were a big part of the reason Dish made the very expensive decision to go with a second arc for the eastern half of the US.
 

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
13,225
3,761
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
I assume the problems with receiving 119 in the NE were a big part of the reason Dish made the very expensive decision to go with a second arc for the eastern half of the US.

If Line of site was an issue, then why even bother with 129. It’s worse then 119 in most areas.

As far as Eastern arc, it really serves 2 purposes...

#1 Since dish networks satellites are self insured, it kind of provides a backup if anything where to happen to 119/110.

Keep in mind Dish has absolutely no insurance on any of their satellites. If the satellite fails, it gets hit by space junk or an alien space craft takes it, Dish is SCREWED!

After Charlie tried to file a fraudulent insurance claim for Echostar 4, no insurance carrier will insure dish satellites. The best they can get is launch insurance if the satellite blows up while being launched.

#2 it provides additional bandwidth for more locals

Dual line of site is nice, considering markets such as Detroit where locals are on both arcs. However Detroit is not by design, it’s a result of them screwing us over and trying crap such as putting our locals on 118.7
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
63,350
3,930
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
If Line of site was an issue, then why even bother with 129. It’s worse then 119 in most areas.

As far as Eastern arc, it really serves 2 purposes...

#1 Since dish networks satellites are self insured, it kind of provides a backup if anything where to happen to 119/110.

Keep in mind Dish has absolutely no insurance on any of their satellites. If the satellite fails, it gets hit by space junk or an alien space craft takes it, Dish is SCREWED!

After Charlie tried to file a fraudulent insurance claim for Echostar 4, no insurance carrier will insure dish satellites. The best they can get is launch insurance if the satellite blows up while being launched.

#2 it provides additional bandwidth for more locals

Dual line of site is nice, considering markets such as Detroit where locals are on both arcs. However Detroit is not by design, it’s a result of them screwing us over and trying crap such as putting our locals on 118.7
People talk about how expensive it is to build and send a Sat up and maintain it ....
DISH has to have twice as many up there with the Western AND Eastern arcs.
That has to be REALLY Expensive.
 

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,388
597
IA
I#1 Since dish networks satellites are self insured, it kind of provides a backup if anything where to happen to 119/110.

As if they could replace all the dishes west of the Mississippi if something happened to 110/119, or that they'd have a way of providing them locals even if they could. There's no backup here, half their customers would be screwed if one of their satellites went out unless they had a spare capable of stepping in to any role.

Not that Directv has full backup either, they could manage to work around a loss of any of their satellites as far as CONUS channels, but not for locals. They would have dozens of markets where customers would lose locals for a long time if one of their satellites carrying spot beams was hit by a solar flare or something.
 

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
13,225
3,761
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
People talk about how expensive it is to build and send a Sat up and maintain it ....
DISH has to have twice as many up there with the Western AND Eastern arcs.
That has to be REALLY Expensive.

Not really when you think about it

Dish
61.5
72
110
118.7
119
129

Directv
95
99
101
103
110
119

Granted those are just the orbital positions both providers primarily broadcast from. As you can see both providers transmit from 6 locations.

There are potentially just as many satellites for Dish and Directv. I lost track many years ago as to which satellites where sitting dark as in orbit spares.

I think Directv actually has more bandwidth at 99/101/103/110/119 then Dish does either using eastern or western arc on Dish.

What I would have seen dish do is activate 148/157/166 and do a true western arc. It would be pretty cool, but probably not cost effective.

But having an easy and West arc on dish is nice. I hated the days of having 2 dishes facing opposite directions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo

HoTat2

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 12, 2012
1,272
323
Los Angeles, CA.
As if they could replace all the dishes west of the Mississippi if something happened to 110/119, or that they'd have a way of providing them locals even if they could. There's no backup here, half their customers would be screwed if one of their satellites went out unless they had a spare capable of stepping in to any role.

Not that Directv has full backup either, they could manage to work around a loss of any of their satellites as far as CONUS channels, but not for locals. They would have dozens of markets where customers would lose locals for a long time if one of their satellites carrying spot beams was hit by a solar flare or something.
Yeah ...

Not sure how much the spotbeam payloads of the "old geezer squad" of T10, T4S, and SW2 could contribute to help in such an emergency event.

But not much if any I suppose ...

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk
 

JSheridan

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Feb 16, 2008
8,895
9,971
USA
People talk about how expensive it is to build and send a Sat up and maintain it ....
DISH has to have twice as many up there with the Western AND Eastern arcs.
That has to be REALLY Expensive.

Echostar which is Dish's 'parent' company owns one of the largest fleets of satellites in the world. I think the last count I heard was 23 satellites.

EchoStar Satellite Services - Satellite Fleet
 

bobvick

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2006
4,458
2,151
Northwest Alabama
Echostar which is Dish's 'parent' company owns one of the largest fleets of satellites in the world. I think the last count I heard was 23 satellites.

EchoStar Satellite Services - Satellite Fleet
Also, Dish/EchoStar lease several satellites. Many of the FSS (11.7-12.2 Ghz) birds are leased, and three of the BSS (12.2-12.7 Ghz) birds Dish uses are leased. Nimiq 5 at 72.7 is leased from Telesat Canada, Quetzsat 1 at 77 is leased from a Mexican arm of SES, and Ciel 2 at 129 is leased from a Canadian division of SES.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSheridan

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,388
597
IA
Not really when you think about it

Dish
61.5
72
110
118.7
119
129

Directv
95
99
101
103
110
119

Granted those are just the orbital positions both providers primarily broadcast from. As you can see both providers transmit from 6 locations.

There are potentially just as many satellites for Dish and Directv. I lost track many years ago as to which satellites where sitting dark as in orbit spares.

I think Directv actually has more bandwidth at 99/101/103/110/119 then Dish does either using eastern or western arc on Dish.

What I would have seen dish do is activate 148/157/166 and do a true western arc. It would be pretty cool, but probably not cost effective.

But having an easy and West arc on dish is nice. I hated the days of having 2 dishes facing opposite directions.

Doesn't Dish have something at 77 also, or is that gone now? And don't some of those locations have more than one satellite?

Directv is getting rid of 95 (which is leased and very old) and 110 (which is very old) and 119 (which is pretty old) so then they'll only have three positions, with a total of five satellites, in less than a year. Currently six if you count D10 but that's duplicate capacity between D12's spot beams and D15's CONUS beams. Those five are the ones they would eventually need to replace - though once T16 launches and goes to 101 (or possibly goes to 103 and D15 goes to 101) the next one in line to be replaced would be D11. It is only 10 years old and likely has at least another decade of life left in it, and the rest even more.

Directv has WAY more bandwidth at 99/101/103 than Dish does even with both arcs combined. There are a total of 32 24 MHz wide Ku band, 96 36 MHz wide Ka band and 36 36 MHz wide reverse band, of which 28 of the Ka band will be spot beams once they've finished shuffling things around for customers in Puerto Rico. That's 4368 MHz of CONUS bandwidth. Anyone able to do similar calculations for Dish?

Directv is in a better position with Dish in terms of having a smaller fleet, having a newer fleet, and having far more capacity. Now maybe by 2030 this is all meaningless because high speed internet and 5G are everywhere so satellite's days are done, if so there's a good chance that T16 is the last satellite Directv will ever need to launch. How many will Dish/Echostar need to replace in the next decade?
 

nelson61

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
6,578
5,436
Where it's Warm
For ALL their spot beams? That's a ton of money to spend on spares considering that satellite failures almost never happen.
Echostar 18 is a 32 transponder 100 percent spotbeam satellite designed for service at various slots. It is brand new and has never been put into service. It was licensed for 110w but was parked at 61 after launch. Been parked there a couple of years.



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSheridan

DishSubLA

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2006
5,134
1,009
For ALL their spot beams? That's a ton of money to spend on spares considering that satellite failures almost never happen.
That's why they don't pay for in orbit insurance on their satellites. It's a very valid business decision because statistically it's a huge waste of money provided you have some backup. Also whatever check the insurance company might cut you will not speed up the construction and launch of a satellite so it's almost worthless to insure in-orbit in many cases, certainly not after few years as the satellite ages: premiums go up and insurance payout decreases, and in most cases, satellites that are likely to suffer a catastrophic failure begin exhibiting problems from almost day one. The infamous example of Echostar IV is a really good example considering the many problems that satellite exhibited from day one, dish was still able to get a fair amount of use out of it with careful management. You do in-orbit insurance if if you don't already have the money or means to get the money to replace that satellite. Dish, DirecTV etc. have plenty of money to immediately contract for construction of a new satellite and its subsequent launch and it won't bankrupt either company if they don't have insurance to pay for it. also it's a pretty long process before the insurance companies decide to pay.

The problem is not the money, the problem is having sufficient spare sats in orbit in case of a catastrophic failure because if customers can't get their TV for the next 3 to 4 years, that company is out of business, and the creditors/banks get the insurance payout check. Both dish and direct have sufficient spare for the most likely statistical catastrophic failure. What's really scary is if we get a really powerful solar flare that can kick out all of those satellites then both dish and direct are in a bit of a pickle.
 
Last edited:

raoul5788

Studebaker driver
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 28, 2004
30,140
13,839
Cheshire CT
What's really scary is if we get a really powerful solar flare that can kick out all of those satellites then both dish and direct are in a bit of a pickle.
If Dish and Directv are knocked out by a solar flare or even an EMP, we have way bigger problems than the loss of satellite tv. Virtually all communication would be affected and maybe the electric grid, too.
 

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,388
597
IA
We would have advance warning if a solar flare was going to hit satellites, and worst case they could power down for a few hours as it passes. While that wouldn't completely eliminate any chance of damage it would make it less likely. I agree though if we had a flare big enough to knock out any modern DBS satellites, we have much bigger problems than that to worry about. A hit that big could means months before power is restored in much of the country - the kind of gear that would need to be replaced isn't exactly off the shelf, and production capacity is limited. Without power no one is going to care whether their satellite service is down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raoul5788

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
13,225
3,761
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
That's why they don't pay for in orbit insurance on their satellites. It's a very valid business decision because statistically it's a huge waste of money provided you have some backup. Also whatever check the insurance company might cut you will not speed up the construction and launch of a satellite so it's almost worthless to insure in-orbit in many cases, certainly not after few years as the satellite ages: premiums go up and insurance payout decreases, and in most cases, satellites that are likely to suffer a catastrophic failure begin exhibiting problems from almost day one. The infamous example of Echostar IV is a really good example considering the many problems that satellite exhibited from day one, dish was still able to get a fair amount of use out of it with careful management. You do in-orbit insurance if if you don't already have the money or means to get the money to replace that satellite. Dish, DirecTV etc. have plenty of money to immediately contract for construction of a new satellite and its subsequent launch and it won't bankrupt either company if they don't have insurance to pay for it. also it's a pretty long process before the insurance companies decide to pay.

The problem is not the money, the problem is having sufficient spare sats in orbit in case of a catastrophic failure because if customers can't get their TV for the next 3 to 4 years, that company is out of business, and the creditors/banks get the insurance payout check. Both dish and direct have sufficient spare for the most likely statistical catastrophic failure. What's really scary is if we get a really powerful solar flare that can kick out all of those satellites then both dish and direct are in a bit of a pickle.

It’s not by choice. Nobody will insure Dish networks satellites after Charlie tried to claim a total loss for Echostar 4.

They decided to go the self insure route
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Latest posts

Top