Null signal in c-band due to interference

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
Innf 3.4 does not work in my area, buying the titanium cp1ll 3.7 worked well for me for 3 months and then I think to activate another signal
but for 1 year I have almost no signal in the entire arc on my 3.5m antenna and another 1.8m antenna,
you have an idea or know what signal can be hurting me
I have my antenna on a second floor, they tell me that the only solution is to relocate to the ground
the problem is that I don't have space to relocate
 

primestar31

SatelliteGuys Master
Mar 15, 2005
8,358
4,632
Beta Omicron Delta III
Sorry, but you haven't given enough info in your post for us to really offer any answers. We need a lot more detail. Including what sorts of things you've tried to fix this "no signal" issue, if anything.

It's helpful to know what receiver you are using, what coax and length, what switches might be in line, everything about your system you can tell us, helps tremendously in giving useful help. Otherwise we can only make wild guesses. Knowing where you are located, such as in the flight path of an airport, or real close to mobile phone transmission towers, or by a military base, etc is also important.
 

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
Sorry, but you haven't given enough info in your post for us to really offer any answers. We need a lot more detail. Including what sorts of things you've tried to fix this "no signal" issue, if anything.

It's helpful to know what receiver you are using, what coax and length, what switches might be in line, everything about your system you can tell us, helps tremendously in giving useful help. Otherwise we can only make wild guesses. Knowing where you are located, such as in the flight path of an airport, or real close to mobile phone transmission towers, or by a military base, etc is also important.
I only get one two tp of each satellite, and the signal is unstable, pixelation
I bought another titanium with filter thinking that it has been damaged, I also tried different receivers
I also tried everything else with the ku band and in this band I have no problems

If I am almost surrounded by mobile phone towers
they say that almost certainly the problem is for 3g or lte at a high frequency
 

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
as I mentioned the c1pll worked for me but they activated something, and now I have 3 c1pll that does not filter the interference

they say the new titanium c2pll your filter is better
and I would not like to spend on the new C2-PLL C-band LNBF Dual (2, because I don't know
if it works with the new interference i have

in case titanium satellite wants to send me c2pll for testing and in the end this is good for this interference I have
I can be guinea pig
 
Last edited:

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
Espaun206, who told you that you need to relocate to the ground?
Do other big dish owners in your area have the same problem?
Espaun206, who told you that you need to relocate to the ground?
Do other big dish owners in your area have the same problem?
In my sector I don't know anyone else who has band c
but others who live 5 km and 8 do not have this problem
but another who lives 250 km away has this problem and only relocating antenna I solve it
commented the interference was 2 to 3 km round wing
in some areas these companies offer LTE and in others they do not


I have almost 8 cellular antennas between 100 and 400 meters around
 

Titanium

AI6US
Lifetime Supporter
May 23, 2013
6,578
7,069
Meadow Vista, Northern California
Unless you know the specifics of the interfering signal, it will be a guessing game to find a working solution. You must determine if interference is occurring within the 3.7-4.2GHz downlink range or outside of this range and overloading the LNB conversion.

If you suspect local interference is the cause of the satellite signal loss, check for terrestrial signals using a spectrum analyzer and a directional antenna. Identify the local interfering signals, frequency, strength and source. Many satellite technicians own or have access to analyzers to perform this site survey.

The C1-PLL and C2-PLL LNBF filtering is different. The C2-PLL has a hard cut filter just below 3.7GHz. The C1-PLL has a soft filter below 3.7GHz and a hard cut below 3.6GHz.
 

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
Unless you know the specifics of the interfering signal, it will be a guessing game to find a working solution. You must determine if interference is occurring within the 3.7-4.2GHz downlink range or outside of this range and overloading the LNB conversion.

If you suspect local interference is the cause of the satellite signal loss, check for terrestrial signals using a spectrum analyzer and a directional antenna. Identify the local interfering signals, frequency, strength and source. Many satellite technicians own or have access to analyzers to perform this site survey.

The C1-PLL and C2-PLL LNBF filtering is different. The C2-PLL has a hard cut filter just below 3.7GHz. The C1-PLL has a soft filter below 3.7GHz and a hard cut below 3.6GHz.
The solution they gave me is to relocate in an area where I have 4 walls and the antenna has no view of the antennas LTE
Surely the interference is greater than 3.7 GHz or 4 or 5 GHz and that is why c1 pll can't with it, so I think c2pll doesn't either

here it is impossible to get an analyzer
 

Titanium

AI6US
Lifetime Supporter
May 23, 2013
6,578
7,069
Meadow Vista, Northern California
You have answered your own question if you are guessing. As there are filtering differences between the two LNBF models, interfering signals will be attenuated / eliminated at different frequencies and with higher/lower signal amplitudes. The dish will need to either be relocated or shielded from the interference source(s) (or reflections), or know what frequency or frequencies to filter out.

If the interfering terrestrial signals are licensed, the primary signal (non harmonic) would not be present within the 3.7-4.2 GHz range. Likely an out of band signal which is overloading the LNB conversion. Without analyzing the received terrestrial signals at the install location, it is impossible to determine the signal path or recommended filtering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armadillo_115

wvman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 19, 2014
2,678
1,260
N. Central WV
You have answered your own question if you are guessing. As there are filtering differences between the two LNBF models, interfering signals will be attenuated / eliminated at different frequencies and with higher/lower signal amplitudes. The dish will need to either be relocated or shielded from the interference source(s) (or reflections), or know what frequency or frequencies to filter out.

If the interfering terrestrial signals are licensed, the primary signal (non harmonic) would not be present within the 3.7-4.2 GHz range. Likely an out of band signal which is overloading the LNB conversion. Without analyzing the received terrestrial signals at the install location, it is impossible to determine the signal path or recommended filtering.
I'm curious to see how 5G is going to affect us and how the FCC will deal with the problem if it affects licensed broadcasters. From what I've read, 5G signals are being looked at pretty hard due to a problem with dangerous radiation emissions that will affect tech guys working on the equipment and people located close to equipment installed within the cities. I don't know much about it, but it appears that the radiation is higher than what we're using now for 4G.

I read an article the other day that said the towers would have to shut down when they're being worked on. Sounds like someone may have opened a Pandora's Box according to what I read. 5G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned - ElectricSense
 

907TECH

SatelliteGuys Family
Aug 29, 2018
88
101
Alaska
5G signals will be no more dangerous than any other non ionizing RF sources. In fact 5G may be lower in RF due to closer distances and inherent efficiency improvements with MIMO and beamforming. Microcells may only use 1 to 10 watts, you could hug the antenna all day without harm. Shutting down equipment while on a tower is common sense, not life or death.
 

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
You have answered your own question if you are guessing. As there are filtering differences between the two LNBF models, interfering signals will be attenuated / eliminated at different frequencies and with higher/lower signal amplitudes. The dish will need to either be relocated or shielded from the interference source(s) (or reflections), or know what frequency or frequencies to filter out.

If the interfering terrestrial signals are licensed, the primary signal (non harmonic) would not be present within the 3.7-4.2 GHz range. Likely an out of band signal which is overloading the LNB conversion. Without analyzing the received terrestrial signals at the install location, it is impossible to determine the signal path or recommended filtering.
but with this you placed on facebook you mean that the new C2 can filter up to 4.65GHz interference

Australian 5G testing indicates that the C2-PLL LNBF is very effective in addressing the 4.65GHz interference from overloading the 3.7-4.2GHz C-band transponders.


and what is in old C1 with filter, what frequency can filter?
 

Titanium

AI6US
Lifetime Supporter
May 23, 2013
6,578
7,069
Meadow Vista, Northern California
Sorry, the post is corrected.

"Australian 5G testing indicates that the C2-PLL LNBF is very effective in addressing the 3.65GHz interference from overloading the 3.7-4.2GHz C-band transponders."

The C2-PLL has a hard cut filter just below 3.7GHz. The C1-PLL has a soft filter below 3.7GHz and a hard cut below 3.6GHz.
 

espaun206

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Oct 4, 2017
65
6
Guatemala
Sorry, the post is corrected.

"Australian 5G testing indicates that the C2-PLL LNBF is very effective in addressing the 3.65GHz interference from overloading the 3.7-4.2GHz C-band transponders."

The C2-PLL has a hard cut filter just below 3.7GHz. The C1-PLL has a soft filter below 3.7GHz and a hard cut below 3.6GHz.
I saved you from many returns for this error

I deserve a new C2 with test filter lol
 
Top