What happens when D1 is end-of-lifed?

Im not sure if D1 is staying at 160E to be co-located with Optus 10. Will need to wait and get it confirmed.

The Optus 10 satellite can broadcast in the 11700-12200 band with D1 doing 12250-12750 the same as the current setup at the 156E orbital Optus slot. Where they have the older Optus C1 and the newer Optus D3 co-located.

Apsattv:

 

Im not sure if D1 is staying at 160E to be co-located with Optus 10. Will need to wait and get it confirmed.

 

The Optus 10 satellite can broadcast in the 11700-12200 band with D1 doing 12250-12750 the same as the current setup at the 156E orbital Optus slot. Where they have the older Optus C1 and the newer Optus D3 co-located.

 

 

 

 

 

Anything official on this from Optus? I was really surprised to see Optus 10 go into the 164E slot to begin with given the additional capacity needed in 160E

Optus D1 once switched to DVB-S2 will have ample capacity using H.264. Usable bandwidth effectively doubles. From 10 x SD channels per half mux to 20 (at current quality). If simulcast are dropped even more free space. HD upgrade will take time, currently only foreign sourced HD stream playout is ESPN, beIN and other sport. Sky aren't going to suddenly pay more for HD versions of Discovery, CNN etc. when an additional expense is involved.

When is Sky going to change fully to DVB-S2? Is the satellite box upgrade process still happening?

DjShadow:

When is Sky going to change fully to DVB-S2? Is the satellite box upgrade process still happening?

The satellite at 164E was mostly used for backhaul celluler sites in outback Australia.  When Optus 10 replaced it m it was fully loaded up.

It was noted the other week all services had left, lyngsat and other tracking sites have it at 160E already.

This scan I did the other day from Perth also confirms, ignore the satellite header at the top saying intelsat19 i  forgot to rename it

What makes you think Freeview would pay the substantial extra costs to go HD on sat? 

Not sure who actually funds Freeview...but it does seem to run on a showstring budget.

Pumpedd:

 

What makes you think Freeview would pay the substantial extra costs to go HD on sat? 

 

Not sure who actually funds Freeview...but it does seem to run on a showstring budget.

 

Any idea how substantial it would be ? I would have thought (in my unknowledgeable way) if the money was found for terrestrial HD, it could be found for the satellite variety.

Spyware:

 

Optus D1 once switched to DVB-S2 will have ample capacity using H.264. Usable bandwidth effectively doubles.

 

So I have a question. Why the hell haven't they done that already? I thought they kept those MPEG-2 channels because the older decoders couldn't do DVB-S2, but now that Sky have replaced all those older decoders, that shouldn't be a problem... right? I can understand how Sky is cheap as sh*t and doesn't want to pay for the HD versions of Discovery, Fox News and so on, but surely they can just get the SD versions of those channels and just broadcast them in H.264?

It's 2018, it's just insane how Sky STILL uses MPEG-2. It makes absolutely NO SENSE. It's laughable.

Pumpedd:

 

What makes you think Freeview would pay the substantial extra costs to go HD on sat? 

 

Not sure who actually funds Freeview...but it does seem to run on a showstring budget.

 

What "substantial extra costs" to go HD are you talking about? the additional cost of simulcasting on a second transponder? They would need the extra capacity for at least 1 year so can remain running the sd service with a shutoff date.

I would expect at a minimum they would need 1 new t.p split in the same arrangment.

The existing encoders can process HD easily enough so theres probably no need for any hardware upgrade.

bobwinters:

 

Spyware:

 

Optus D1 once switched to DVB-S2 will have ample capacity using H.264. Usable bandwidth effectively doubles.

 

 

So I have a question. Why the hell haven't they done that already? I thought they kept those MPEG-2 channels because the older decoders couldn't do DVB-S2, but now that Sky have replaced all those older decoders, that shouldn't be a problem... right? I can understand how Sky is cheap as sh*t and doesn't want to pay for the HD versions of Discovery, Fox News and so on, but surely they can just get the SD versions of those channels and just broadcast them in H.264?

 

It's 2018, it's just insane how Sky STILL uses MPEG-2. It makes absolutely NO SENSE. It's laughable.

 

Yes it should of been done and dusted 2 to 3 Years ago..!

I wonder if they delayed in knowing that the Optus 10 satellite was being shifted with slightly improved power levels. The DVB-S2 format is much more fussy with the required signal levels to have stable reception.

an overnight transfer of all sky t.p to dvb -s2 is going to be fun, when previously working setups suddenly have signal issues.

Spyware:

 

Sky aren't going to suddenly pay more for HD versions of Discovery, CNN etc. when an additional expense is involved.

 

Yet Sky have no issues slugging customers $9.99 per month for the HD access ticket. Surely this fee is to cover the costs of HD sourced content as well as the extra satellite capacity needed for HD broadcasts.

cws82us: I hope maybe sky will do 4k soon