Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DirecTV Plans 1500 HiDef Channels by End of 2007

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the infomercials-and-bad-movies dept.

doormat writes "DirecTV plans on launching four Ka-band satellites by 2007. This means local HiDef channels over satellite for the biggest markets by the end of 2005, with room for 500 HD channels. Plus 1000 more HD local channels and 150 national HD channels by the end of 2007. Thats a total bandwidth of 34Gbit/s, which is about 10 times the bandwidth they currently have in the Ku band (the band they use now for direct-to-home TV service). The bandwidth crunch for satellite providers is over, and the Ka band is the answer."

37 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Ka? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh no. My radar detector is going to catch fire.

    1. Re:Ka? by blanks · · Score: 3, Funny

      And there still wont be anything on.

      --
      TruePunk | Games
  2. Rain Fade by composer777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they've figured out how to adequately solve the problem of rain fade on the Ka Band. From what little I understand of satellite transmission, rain fade is an even bigger problem on the Ka Band than it is on the current Ku Band that Directv uses. It's not a problem at all on the C Band (big dish) satellites. Do they plan on getting around this by using more power? Or, do they think that more rain fade is an acceptable trade-off for the extra bandwidth?

    1. Re:Rain Fade by the_denman · · Score: 3, Interesting
      my understanding is that they will do it in the same way that they get away with using the little dishes, pumping a huge amount of power out.

      DIRECTV 10 and DIRECTV 11, to be built by Boeing, will be among the largest and most powerful Ka-band satellites ever launched.

    2. Re:Rain Fade by Cramer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      C band hardware doesn't have a problem with rain fade because the dish is over a meter wide. If you aimed a 1.8m dish at one of the DTV birds, you wouldn't have a problem with rain fade either. (you'd have a bigger problem keeping it properly aimed, btw.)

    3. Re:Rain Fade by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      my understanding is that they will do it in the same way that they get away with using the little dishes, pumping a huge amount of power out.
      It's a satellite. Powered by solar cells. As much as they'd probably love to pump a `huge amount of power out', they don't have a huge amount of power to pump with. According to this link, the solar cells (which are huge!) of this satellite put out 4.3 kW of power. Which is a lot, but I imagine that's peak power, and the satellite cannot be in the sun all the time, so it's got to charge batteries for night time use, and it's transmitters are not 100% efficient ...

      All in all, I doubt it can put out 1000 watts of RF power 24/7. Compare that to your local FM station that probably broadcasts with 100,000 watts and only serves an area with an 60 mile or so radius. At high frequencies, you don't need a large dish for high gain (doubling the frequency generally doubles the gain), so the little dishes do the job.

      Still, that's pretty impressive. 4.3 kW of power for a satellite? And the new ones are likely to be even bigger. (For comparison, Voyager broadcasts with 13 watts of power. Of course, it's power source is probably nuclear.)

      With 4.3 kW of power coming in at peak (and never mind that solar cells aren't very efficient, so there's several times that amount of heat being collected by the solar cells), I wonder how they keep it cool. In space, you can't just tack on a big fan ... you need to radiate your heat into space.

    4. Re:Rain Fade by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's not forget that these sats are geosynchronous, which puts them out at roughly 25K miles. The shadow cast by the Earth is much smaller than near the Earth. And, of course, these sats won't necessarily be in the path of that shadow at all.

      So, I think it's fair to assume that they spend most of their time in the light soaking up power. Also, solar cell panels on large expensive satellites are usually computer guided. They deploy and then track the Sun so they'll get most of the power most of the time.

      The link you gave only mentions the three existing satellites. They generate 4.3kW of power. Those sats, however, are almost 10 years old now. The article doesn't say, but I would guess that these new sats generate even more power (more efficient and/or bigger cells).

      --
      Elrond, Duke of URL
      "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
    5. Re:Rain Fade by dougmc · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I found another link which isn't what I'd call authoritative, but suggests that the (newer? Boeing 701 vs Boeing 601?) DTV satellites put out 3.5 kW of RF power. Which is still a lot, but still nothing compared to a single FM radio station. Of course, it helps not having to go through buildings, trees, etc. And having an antenna with a nice bit of gain over a simple dipole (if you're lucky) for the FM band.

      I believe the systems used to talk to submarines using the extremely low frequency bands (ELF) use something like three megawatts of power ...

    6. Re:Rain Fade by stuktongue · · Score: 5, Informative

      C band hardware doesn't have a problem with rain fade because the dish is over a meter wide.

      Actually, the primary reason for C band's superior performance w.r.t. rain fade is the reduced atmospheric attenuation associated with lower frequencies, in general, and, in particular, with C band's frequencies vs. K band's frequencies. The atmosphere has different effects at different frequencies. The reduced attenuation at C band allows for greater link margin and, therefore, greater link robustness vs. rain.

      The gains of a 1.8m dish at C band and a DirecTV dish at K band are similar. (Higher frequencies require smaller dishes for the same gain.)

      If you aimed a 1.8m dish at one of the DTV birds, you wouldn't have a problem with rain fade either. (you'd have a bigger problem keeping it properly aimed, btw.)

      Very true. Of course, the dish (antenna, in general) would have to be designed to operate at K band frequencies. It's not a given that you can just swap reflectors around. Antenna design at microwave frequencies is complex.

    7. Re:Rain Fade by Cramer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was gonna mention that (Ka/Ku is close to the vibration frequency of H2O, add in the scatter from lots of water droplets...) but I didn't want to get overly technical :-) I'll add, C band signals are encoded different than (DTV) K band stuff.

      (DTV/DISH dishes larger than 18" are available -- up to 35" as I recall. But the aiming sensitivity makes them less desirable for general use.)

    8. Re:Rain Fade by stuktongue · · Score: 5, Informative

      Solar cells are small. They are arrayed to create solar arrays, or solar panels. These can be quite large, depending on the power requirements of the satellite.

      Nominal power ratings for satellites assume sun-normal orientation of the solar arrays, which is actively maintained by the satellite. The satellite receives 100% illumination by the sun during most of the year, the exceptions being the spring and fall eclipse seasons, when the satellite transits the Earth's penumbral and umbral regions for up to a couple of hours per day. During these events, solar array power is augmented with battery power. Bus voltage drops and current draws increase, but transmitted powers generally stay the same. Yes, over the life of the satellite (10-15+ years) batteries degrade somewhat, though battery reconditioning techniques are employed to mitigate this. With today's designs, running out of fuel is usually what limits mission life.

      The reason terrestrial radio stations require the power levels they do is that they typically transmit more or less omni-directionally (or at least toroidally), as opposed to how geo satellites use highly-directional (high gain) antennas for CONUS (or whatever) coverage. The effect of the differences between these two antenna types (tens of dB in gain) far outweighs the 20 dB power difference you mention (1 kW vs. 100 kW). The high gain antennas for DBS allow multiple channels of high bandwidth at reduced power vs. their terrestrial brethren. They're really two totally different kettles of fish.

      Finally, thermal management is an important part of modern satellite design. Heat pipes, thermal radiators (mirrors), finishes, and other techniques are all used to collect, distribute, and reject heat. The effectiveness of these techniques can limit a design, and how capable a company is at dealing with thermal problems can determine the capabilities of its offerings relative to those of its competitors.

      BTW, the current commercial satellite models offered by Boeing are based on the 702 bus, which supercedes the 601. Both of these designs were the product of Hughes Space and Communications Co. (part of the old Hughes Aircraft Company), now Boeing Satellite Systems (Boeing bought HSC in 2000).

    9. Re:Rain Fade by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Heat can be transferred through conduction or radiation. You are right that there is no conduction in space, but radiation still occurs (that's how solar heat gets to us). The problem is that radiation is far less effective than conduction, thus temperature management of any spacecraft is indeed a major issue. For this reason any new spacecraft design undergoes thorough thermal testing in a specially designed vacuum facility.

      While I cannot claim to be an expert on thermal analysis, I have been working as a software expert in ESA's spacecraft testing centre for the past six years, writing and maintaining the software used to gather, process, and present thermal data during thermal testing. The big device in the top-left corner of the image is ESA's Large Space Simulator, and the little room a little to the right of that is my office ;-)

      A thermal test typically lasts a few weeks, and we would typically be gathering data from 1500-2000 sensors (mostly thermocouples and PT100's) on the spacecraft, plus another 1000-1500 from the facility itself (depending on configuration). This adds up to a couple of gigabytes worth of data.

      Right now the first ATV (the Autonomous Transfer Vehicle that is scheduled to bring freight to ISS starting next year or so) is being prepped for testing, somewhere at the end of this year.

      Since this is /., I should probably add that for presentation and control of the system we use a mix of HP-UX (for historical reasons) and Windows XP PC's. Our main server is an aging HP-UX machine, which we will soon be replacing by a Linux solution. I've been gently pushing Linux for a while now, but one of my problems is that many of the acquisition systems require GPIB support which is hard to find under Linux (there are no drivers available for HP cards).

      There are guided tours from the Space Expo, if you are interested.

  3. We've heard this before... by nuclear305 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The bandwidth crunch for satellite providers is over, and the Ka band is the answer."

    Such little insight...

    Of course, next week we'll be hearing about KBv6 (Ka-Band v6)

  4. 1500 channels and nothing to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1500 channels sounds good, but what are they going to do for content? If the crap airing now is any indication, there's going to be a lot of dead air in 2007. Maybe they can use the equipment for satellite internet.

    1. Re:1500 channels and nothing to watch by TGK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bullshit. I work for Dish, we have 100 or so local markets but to say that we need to provide locals to everyone if we provide locals to Atlanta doesn't make any sense.

      Plain and simple, there are people out there who don't get local channels. There are people out there who do get local channels. As no action has been taken, we can only assume you to be wrong on this point.

      What you probably meant is that if Dish provides NBC, ABC, CBS etc for the Atlanta area, they have to make the same pricing scheme available to other local channels in the Atlanta area. They can't just carry the big names and shut the little guy out. They also can't charge lower interest channels a premium rate to be uplinked.

      That does make for ugly bandwidth problems, but remember this is directional. Dish (for example) has satelites at the following orbital locations 119 110 61.5 148 121 105. The doubleing capacity attainable by opening up another band there is huge. More to the point though, is that those low demand channels aren't on the valuable realestate (119 110), they get shunted over to the wings (148, 61.5). There's not as much of a crunch as you think...

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:1500 channels and nothing to watch by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "1500 channels sounds good, but what are they going to do for content?"

      The Star Trek Channel, the A Team Channel, the Quantum Leap Channel, the Will and Grace Channel, the Cowboy Neal Channel....

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  5. 1500 channels and STILL nothing on... by penginkun · · Score: 5, Funny

    I shudder to think how they're going to fill 1500 channels.

    The Survivor Channel. The Paris Hilton Sex Tape Channel. The Dixon-Ticonderoga #2 Pencil Channel. The Slashdot Channel.

    Etc, etc...

  6. DirecTV will compress the hell out of them by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even today DirecTV is compressing their HD signals to fit more channels in the same bandwidth. They OUGHT to be maxing out the 19.8Mbps that ATSC allocates because for some scenes, 19.8Mbps isn't quite enough to fully resolve high-motion without ugly macro-blocking.

    But, HD shows on DirecTV (and a lot of the other satellight providers) are being squished down into 14Mbps or less. It's like they don't get it - HDTV is about the HIGH DEFINITION not the LSTCTV (lots of stupid channels tv). People who pay for high def want the best possible picture quality, not the most possible crappy looking channels.

    Leave the crappy picture quality to the standard def channels where people have already given up on ever getting it look good again (once upon a tv, early in the mini-dish era, the standard-def channels had so much bandwidth available that they often looked at least as good as DVD and lots of times they would even look better, but it hasn't been like that for years).

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:DirecTV will compress the hell out of them by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Informative

      DirecTV won't have to recompress the channels at all. The 2 new SPACEWAY sats can easily deliver every current local HD channel, with plenty of room for expansion.

      Estimates put the total capacity for SPACEWAY at around 500 full-bitrate HD channels. Multiply by two satellites (the third is a spare), and that's 1000 HD channels (note that this figure is based on a 25/75 mix of 720p to 1080i).

      There are around 1800 channels in the country, but at least half of those (religous channels, shopping channels, etc.) have no plans to broadcast HD in the immediate future.

  7. But classic syndicated shows aren't in HD, so.... by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow. 1700 channels. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from changing the channel! The only problem is that there are relatively few good shows on at any one time, and none old the "classics" are HD. So the fancy 16:9 GasChromatographBlueLED flat-panel is going serve up 800+ channels of crummy-looking 4:3 interlaced NTSC or PAL "classics" like Mork & Mindy.

  8. Ka-Band Report by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 4, Informative

    # They will lead to a fundamental restructuring of the world's communications satellite industry and lead to the development of global satellite operators with integrated L-band, C-band, Ku-band and Ka-band systems, using geostationary and low and middle earth orbits.

    # This will reinforce the dominance of the United States in the provision of space and ground infrastructure, information technology and services.

    # It looks likely that either low earth or middle earth orbiting satellite systems will have a major competitive advantage over geostationary systems. Such Ka-band networks will, in the long run, be integrated with Big LEO mobile satellite networks.

    # Geostationary Ka-band satellites will be ineffective in providing a platform for ATM services because of the time delay in a signal being transmitted from one ground station to another through such a satellite. The problem is likely to be addressed by using low or medium earth orbit satellites.

    # Current regional or major domestic satellite operators will only survive in this market if they tie closely to the dominant global operators. Use of inter-satellite links will facilitate this.

    # If they do not cooperate, they are faced with the option of getting into the US marketplace or getting out of the satcoms business altogether.

    # There is no one clearly identified "killer application" for Ka-band satellites but provision of high speed Internet and associated services is likely to be a major short to medium term lead market. Ka-band satellites can provide the cheapest and most quickly available of all options (high speed cable modems, ADSL and ISDN) in providing such high speed access.

    # Ka-band satellites are likely to find a role in the mass consumer markets with "Home-use VSAT" sales running into, perhaps, millions per year. Consumers are also likely to be offered combined Ku-band/Ka-band dishes capable of receiving digital satellite television services and providing two-way services.

    # Ka-band satellites will offer the best of 21st Century communications services to underdeveloped regions of the world.

    # The policy and regulatory issues behind Ka-band satellites are far more complex and demanding than those that have hitherto faced any form of satellite communications including DTH and DBS TV, VSATs and PCS mobile communications satellites.

    # The United States is arm twisting the rest of the world to open up the global telecommunications market place to allow Ka-band satellite operators to compete with local telecoms and satellite interests.

    # The Ka-band Report contradicts the conventional wisdom that Ka-band satellites will come later rather than sooner. Behind closed door developments facilitating Ka-band communications are happening right now - with the satellite operators, the

    # European Commission, the World Trade organisation and elsewhere.

    # The first orders for broadband Ka-band satellites are likely to be placed this year.

    # There will be a considerable shakeout of the current number of plans for Ka-band satellite systems with only the stronger or more entrepreneurial projects surviving. Even so, some major satellite operators remain woefully unprepared for the Ka-band era.

    # The world's satellite operators should be looking to Ka-band services, not digital satellite television, as their next great market opportunity.

    # They will need to develop new marketing policies and customer bases and cultivate new partners both amongst existing and new telecoms operators.

    # Europe remains way behind the United States in developing the appropriate satellite technology (on-board processing, switching, antennas) and ground stations (phased array antennas) needed for the Ka-band environment.

    Source: http://www.mindbranch.com

    --
    Creative Demolition
  9. I hope there’s not a market for these new cha by AssProphet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consider the cost involved in production of programming for television channels, and then add the cost of businesses paying for the marketing to pay for that programming. Now add all the people who are watching television because there is "nothing better to do."

    It just saddens me to see such an investment in entertainment. Especially since entertainment doesn't have any kind of economic return for the individual. I'll agree that entertainment is necessary for humans to enjoy life, but 1500 channels is beyond excessive.

  10. Ah! by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Informative

    I still haven't bought a satellite or digital cable subscription. Partly because I am cheap, but also in large part because MPEG fragments drive me up the wall. I mean, I'll deal with it when it's a uhh... legally downloaded movie I'm watching on my computer, but when I'm watching shows on my TV, I don't want them to be skimping on the bandwidth. If I can tell that you're using compression, then your bitrate is too low! Lord help the people with HDTVs, paying a boatload more for a better TV and HDTV channels and still getting MPEG fragments? Come on people, it's 2004.

  11. Slam Dunk for Mark Cuban by loid_void · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess Mark Cuban was right, founding HDNet, the first national HD network to broadcast all of its programming in 1080i resolution, the highest-quality format of high-definition. And isn't it a coincidence that there is a Ku band?

    --
    Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
  12. Don't know if people said this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    But the 1500 HD channels is going have a majority of the channels devoted to local channels that you will only get in your respective local area. So, you won't have 1500 channels show up on your program guide, only the local channels all broadcast in HD plus the 200+ satellite-only HD channels.

  13. This will be the killer application for satellite by barfy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First TiVo just works better with satellite than over the air, because it just copies the satellites digital signal rather than recompressing the stream.

    Second, HD looks GREAT on a SD TV. I have been a satellite subscriber since day one because local cable was aweful. It used to have a great picture, but the channel squeeze forced bit rates down so low it was like watching a good streaming internet image (crappy).

    But I now have HDTiVo hooked up to a very nice SD set (XBR2) and a very nice HD projector (NEC HT1000). The projector is great for movies, but is just too big for watching TV. But HD channels on the SD set are some of the best quality TV around.

    This will benefit all subscribers by getting high enough bandwidth for all stations, and more HD than will be provided by my local provider. I am just disappointed it is going to take 3 years to get up and running.

  14. They already have football in HD by weedenbc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This year Fox and CBS are carrying several games each week in glorious HD. If you are a HD subscriber and a Sunday Ticket subscriber you get several of those games in HD each, plus every game in SD, plus the Sunday night ESPN games.

    I'm drooling already waiting for Sunday.

    --

    "Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
  15. All the channels and only commercials to watch by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares how many channels it can support? Those are just marketing gimics. I have 70 channels on basic cable and I can flip through them all and find only crap or commercials. TV was better back in the UK with just four channels. There was either really good stuff on, or it didn't take long to discover cricket and horse racing only. More channels != better TV. More channels == dilution and lower quality.

  16. Re:DirectTV HDTV by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe $11 gets you the HDTV channels - there aren't a lot of them. I think you'll need another subscription to get everything else. The DirecTV page for their HDTV package is here.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  17. Re:But classic syndicated shows aren't in HD, so.. by bitingduck · · Score: 4, Funny

    My mom already thinks her digital cable is like a time machine, because nearly everything she's ever watched is still on.

    With 1700 channels, everything that was ever shown on TV could be rebroadcast on a regular basis-- there could even be multiple Love Boat channels, a channel for each Star Trek season, one for the good Star Trek movies, and one for the bad...

  18. Scientific Satellite Interference by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've worked on scientific satellite designs and the Ka band is quite frequently used for downloading data from satellites to Earth. I would like to know what specific ranges of the Ka band Direct TV will be allowed to use, the article does not mention this information. If media content providers are allowed to move in on frequencies that are typically used for scientific satellites (or even close enough to cause interference), costs for obtaining this data and processing it could increase immensely. Or even worse, communication time could be reduced or even eliminated. Hopefully Direct TV will be constained enough that they don't impinge on these scientific efforts.

    1. Re:Scientific Satellite Interference by stuktongue · · Score: 4, Informative

      Years ago, I processed reports from an organization known as the IFRB, which I seem to remember as the International Frequency Registration Board, or something like that. This organization received, circulated, and arbitrated RFCs for frequency bands made by the various satellite providers/manufacturers around the world. The purpose was to avoid interference between new systems and existing systems.

      Many techniques exist for reducing or eliminating interference, not just frequency separation. Polarization schemes are a big part of the solution, but there are others (spatial isolation, of course, and coding schemes with digital systems).

      If your data transmission is at all on the radar, so to speak, I think it'd be safe to say people are designing new systems to be compatible. Or so we think. :-)

  19. I'll say it now... by kubrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    so people can quote me in the future as an example of how misguided our thinking was in the past.

    34 Gbps should be enough for anyone.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  20. Re:Big numbers by aduzik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do we have to say it? 1500 channels and nothing on.

    --
    If it's not one thing it's your mother.
  21. Re:DirectTV HDTV by charyou-tree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been a few months (April) since I've been able to watch the DirecTV HD package. Has it improved at all?

    At that time,

    ESPN
    Sucked. 90% of their programming was SD upconverts. Worse, they streeeeetched the image to 16:9 which distorted the picture and made it physically painful to watch. They had some nicely done Sunday night football games last year.

    Discovery HD
    Nice, but incredibly repetitive. The channel was on a 4 hour loop most of the time.

    HDMovies (Movie channel showing various movies from classics to recent favorites)
    Sucked in a major way. 90%+ old retread movies. Sure, "Endless Summer" was cool to watch, the first of the 7,312 times they broadcast it.

    HDNet - pretty much a worthless channel showing repeats of recent Nascar Races, Horse, Races, and concerts. They also have some original series on it (I think).
    Good for MLS games, if you're into that, which I am.

    Now they've added BravoHD to the $10.99 HD package, which was part of a deal they had with NBC over the Olympics. Rumor has it they're going to push some SciFi channel programming onto Bravo, which would be cool.

    CBSHD - I live in Utah and they allow me to pick up the CBS HD feed from LA. This is great because I can watch my shows an hour later in HD without needing the off air ant.
    Don't knock OTA antennas, if you can get a signal. A one-time expense of under $100 and a few hours installing an antenna in my attic got me perfect recepton of ABC, CBS, and NBC digital broadcast. The picture from local stations is typically compressed less than DBS signals, and it's free.

    It's too bad that getting a waiver from a local station, even if you can't get their signal, is a nightmare most places. I can't get Fox, at all, and I'm not real hopeful about being able to get it over DirecTV, even when they start offering it.

    I also enjoy watching Golf in High def on the weekends. You can tell a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the shows in HD and regular shows. People come over and just say WOW to the sporting events. Movies are not that much different.
    I agree, HD is incredible. I could watch paint dry in HD, but I'm not sure if I could make myself watch golf. :-)

    Cons:
    No STINKING TIVO!!!!!! I can't wait for the HDTivo to be affordable.
    Agreed. They need a standalone HD DVR model that doesn't force us to hock our existing HD STBs on eBay.

  22. Wrong! by ostiguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently Paramount studios' tv productions were shot on film. Some of their back catalog is being restore for HD syndication - Cheers is already being shown in HD on some local channels.

    ostiguy

  23. Re:DirectTV HDTV by cblood · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't get Fox, at all, and I'm not real hopeful about being able to get it over DirecTV, even when they start offering it.

    Are you kidding? that's a feature