Vip receivers

[ethanlerma]

Specifically you must have a DPP LNB and the correct switches and hubs.

Small correction here. Hybrid LNB's (and the DPH42 for that matter) are retro compatible with DPP/DPX technology and will handle any receiver connected as long as its not a legacy receiver (4-Digit Model number). I have gone back as far as having a 311 work with a Hybrid LNB just fine. You are not able to connect a VIP receiver to the same Hybrid LNB a Hopper3/Duo is connected to making a DPH42 necessary in that scenario, but for the purpose of a downgrade changing the LNB is not required.

 

[navychop]

We should note that it's been years since the last Hopper was manufactured. I wish I knew when the last one came off the line.

 

[RTCDude]

Small correction here. Hybrid LNB's (and the DPH42 for that matter) are retro compatible with DPP/DPX technology and will handle any receiver connected as long as its not a legacy receiver (4-Digit Model number). I have gone back as far as having a 311 work with a Hybrid LNB just fine. You are not able to connect a VIP receiver to the same Hybrid LNB a Hopper3/Duo is connected to making a DPH42 necessary in that scenario, but for the purpose of a downgrade changing the LNB is not required.

Correct, a detail I overlooked. Thanks for pointing this out.

So you would need either a DPP/DPH LNB and a DPH42 switch (which is what I have with a DPP LNB). With the power inserter that comes with the DPH42, you can hook up one VIP receiver, and a Hopper3 and Joeys through a dual DPH hub fed from the DPH42.

With a DPP LNB, two feeds go to the DPH42 to supply 110/119 but 129 excluded. The third feed from the DPP LNB can then feed a second VIP receiver. This is the configuration I used.

With a DPH LNB feeding the DPH42 switch, you would get all three 110/119/129 satellites, but no feed for a second VIP receiver.

I didn't go to the effort to figure out any more exotic configurations for more than two VIP receivers because I didn't need to hook up more that two.

This is the best that I know, but please correct me if I got any details incorrect or if anyone has any greater details.

 

[RTCDude]

We should note that it's been years since the last Hopper was manufactured. I wish I knew when the last one came off the line.

Then Dish must have plenty of Hopper3s in stock.

 

[dishdude]

Then Dish must have plenty of Hopper3s in stock.

Have you looked at how many subscribers cancel each quarter?

 

[ethanlerma]

With a DPP LNB, two feeds go to the DPH42 to supply 110/119 but 129 excluded. The third feed from the DPP LNB can then feed a second VIP receiver. This is the configuration I used.

I would of personally opted for a DPP44+DPH42 to make sure both of your VIP's and the Hopper got access to all three satellites, but given the (all but confirmed) retirement of 129 your configuration is just as valid.

With a DPH LNB feeding the DPH42 switch, you would get all three 110/119/129 satellites, but no feed for a second VIP receiver.

Not exactly. DPH LNB's are unique in that they only provide two outputs, and when connected to a switch like the DPH42 each feed only provides access to one satellite. This would be fine for EA (72/61.5) but is insufficient for WA (119/110/129), meaning that a DPH42 fed with a DPH LNB will only ever have access to 119/110. Again, given the retirement of 129 this is going to become a non-issue. You are correct in their not being a place to connect the second VIP receiver, meaning a DPP44 would need to be added.

Keep in mind that these kind of configurations are only needed for you and me with "exotic" setups, going back to the OP's question it all becomes irrelevant as they most likely don't have/need a switch at all, and as I mentioned earlier a DPH LNB will handle a VIP receiver connected directly just fine.

 

[RTCDude]

I would of personally opted for a DPP44+DPH42 to make sure both of your VIP's and the Hopper got access to all three satellites, but given the (all but confirmed) retirement of 129 your configuration is just as valid.

Yes, I assumed that a DPP44 would be needed if the VIP722's were to be more permanent. But in my case the support of both the Hopper and VIP receivers at the same time was just a temporary situation, so I was trying to add only the minimum HW needed for this temporary bridge solution; even if that meant sacrificing 129 in the meantime.

Not exactly. DPH LNB's are unique in that they only provide two outputs, and when connected to a switch like the DPH42 each feed only provides access to one satellite. This would be fine for EA (72/61.5) but is insufficient for WA (119/110/129), meaning that a DPH42 fed with a DPH LNB will only ever have access to 119/110. Again, given the retirement of 129 this is going to become a non-issue. You are correct in their not being a place to connect the second VIP receiver, meaning a DPP44 would need to be added.

I was assuming that when using a DPH LNB, all three sats, 110/119/129, were combined into one cable feed when using DDP equipment like when it's used with DPH equipment. So a DPH LNB wouldn't quite work like I thought. But since I only had a DDP LNB, I couldn't test this.

Keep in mind that these kind of configurations are only needed for you and me with "exotic" setups, going back to the OP's question it all becomes irrelevant as they most likely don't have/need a switch at all, and as I mentioned earlier a DPH LNB will handle a VIP receiver connected directly just fine.

Yes, these are "unusual" configurations that only a small percentage of us would ever see Let alone use. And yes, a DPH LNB would handle a VIP receiver directly. But what I was putting forth is based on the belief that Dish would only authorize a VIP receiver if it was ADDED to an account (i.e., the Hopper and VIP were working at the same time), and would never (in its current business climate) authorize a SWAP of a Hopper for a VIP at the same time, even if you did own the VIP. The suggestion of "only a Hopper —> a Hopper + a VIP —> only a VIP" was merely a means to get around (barely) installation Dish's rules.

But as you hint at, we've now gotten way off in the weeds from the OPs original question. And these are now just some hypotheticals that will (hopefully) never be tested.

 

[navychop]

This discussion makes streaming more appealing.

 

[ethanlerma]

The suggestion of "only a Hopper —> a Hopper + a VIP —> only a VIP" was merely a means to get around (barely) installation Dish's rules.

Well, you can always tell the CSR that both systems are connected without going into details. Unless both receivers were connected to the internet (DBS communications are only one way) they wouldn't be able to tell otherwise.

This discussion makes streaming more appealing.

If that's the case, lets change the conversation to explaining the IP protocol and the nuances to transmitting live TV over the internet while maintaining a healthy buffer

 

[MikeD-C05]

We should note that it's been years since the last Hopper was manufactured. I wish I knew when the last one came off the line.

It was in January of 2016 when the Hopper 3 came out. I remember I bought one that year. The first hopper came out in January of 2012. The hopper with Sling came out in 2013 at CES. I owned all three of them and traded each one in for credit towards the newer model when it came out at now closed dishdepot.com. If satellite was still going to be around for another decade I could see them come out with a Hopper 4 with the Plus device built in, so you would only need it for all your viewing online and on satellite. But I don't foresee them being around in 5 - 7 years , at least as a satellite company for home viewing. They are losing around 1 million subs a year and they only have 7 million satellite subs now and at that rate they would be gone by 2030, if it makes it that long.

 

[navychop]

I could see them come out with a Hopper 4 with the Plus device built in

And, and, and …..

 

[RTCDude]

This discussion makes streaming more appealing.

That made me laugh so hard! You made my day!

 

[tjboston5676]

It was in January of 2016 when the Hopper 3 came out. I remember I bought one that year. The first hopper came out in January of 2012. The hopper with Sling came out in 2013 at CES. I owned all three of them and traded each one in for credit towards the newer model when it came out at now closed dishdepot.com. If satellite was still going to be around for another decade I could see them come out with a Hopper 4 with the Plus device built in, so you would only need it for all your viewing online and on satellite. But I don't foresee them being around in 5 - 7 years , at least as a satellite company for home viewing. They are losing around 1 million subs a year and they only have 7 million satellite subs now and at that rate they would be gone by 2030, if it makes it that long.

They still have a good 10-15 years. Rural areas still don't have access to good internet available to them. Starlink is out now but cost $600 up front and $120 per month. A lot places still don't even have cell service or atleast cellular data. Until high speed internet is available at affordable prices to 90+% of the nation then satellite will continue to thrive.

 

[HipKat]

They still have a good 10-15 years. Rural areas still don't have access to good internet available to them. Starlink is out now but cost $600 up front and $120 per month. A lot places still don't even have cell service or atleast cellular data. Until high speed internet is available at affordable prices to 90+% of the nation then satellite will continue to thrive.

SIX HUNDRED????
Geez. It started out at 3 or 4 hundred up front and $99 a month

 

[MikeD-C05]

They still have a good 10-15 years. Rural areas still don't have access to good internet available to them. Starlink is out now but cost $600 up front and $120 per month. A lot places still don't even have cell service or atleast cellular data. Until high speed internet is available at affordable prices to 90+% of the nation then satellite will continue to thrive.

Texas just passed in the legislature this last week that the state will spend over a $1.5 billion to expand broadband to Rural areas of Texas. There is also money in the Infrastructure Act that was passed last year in congress that spends $42.5 billion more across the country to do the same thing. The time is running out on satellite. That is just a given now.

 

[tjboston5676]

SIX HUNDRED????
Geez. It started out at 3 or 4 hundred up front and $99 a month

My boss got it when it first released in our area for pre order and it was $500 then and $99/mo. But yea they went up a few months back I believe.

 

[ethanlerma]

Texas just passed in the legislature this last week that the state will spend over a $1.5 billion to expand broadband to Rural areas of Texas.

I know most of this money is going to people relying on satellite/dsl connections, but here's hoping I get some type of fiber service in my town (most neighboring towns have it for some reason). Having a cable company monopolize the whole area is probably just as bad as not having highspeed internet at all.

 

[tjboston5676]

I know most of this money is going to people relying on satellite/dsl connections, but here's hoping I get some type of fiber service in my town (most neighboring towns have it for some reason). Having a cable company monopolize the whole area is probably just as bad as not having highspeed internet at all.

In Texas Panhandle they are running a ton of fiber, but guess what? All the houses and neighborhoods that don't have cable access, despite them running fiber down the highway right next to them, they still aren't running it to these areas. It's ridiculous.

Where I live in a neighborhood of about 20-30 houses, they literally just ran it down the main road, roughly 500ft away from my house but they won't be running it to us.

 

[HipKat]

In Texas Panhandle they are running a ton of fiber, but guess what? All the houses and neighborhoods that don't have cable access, despite them running fiber down the highway right next to them, they still aren't running it to these areas. It's ridiculous.

Where I live in a neighborhood of about 20-30 houses, they literally just ran it down the main road, roughly 500ft away from my house but they won't be running it to us.

It's getting there, I have friends laying out routes, properties, and poles for Fiber in McAllen right now

 

[MikeD-C05]

I know most of this money is going to people relying on satellite/dsl connections, but here's hoping I get some type of fiber service in my town (most neighboring towns have it for some reason). Having a cable company monopolize the whole area is probably just as bad as not having highspeed internet at all.

Yes we have Spectrum or ATT Fiber in the park where I live. ATT is actually cheaper , but I don't like using them because of past bad customer experiences with their company.