Log in
Register
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sky Digital BSkyB, Freesat & Saorsat support forum
Sky & Freesat fringe reception
C4 Transporder
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PoloMint" data-source="post: 41318" data-attributes="member: 175235"><p>That’s something I’ve asked a quite a bit also, except the other way around ‘why is 2B north weaker than 2A north?’ as back home in the south of Spain that is the case. Can’t give you a perfect answer but this might help.</p><p></p><p>Firstly don’t expect the footprints to be accurate, they are a guide rather than being drawn up from any measurements. The one for 2D being a better example of this. As far as Astra are concerned as long as the footprint is (slightly) on the conservative side there are no problems with it, as no one will complain that it states a 1.0m should receive it when in fact a 1.1 is needed etc etc. This also allows for transponders to get weaker over time and the documented footprint to remain the same. For the same reason there is no need to accurately portray side lobes and hot spots. If the footprint says you are just off the edge then as far as Astra are concerned you are out of reception area, it doesn’t make any difference that your friend 150 miles further outside the footprint can receive it with a smaller dish than you (as is the case with some people and 2D), that is far to difficult to document, and the number of people that far from the target area is going to be so small that it is financially unviable to print very accurate footprints. As long as the target area is fully covered and the regions where dish sizes change are fairly accurate the operator paying for the channels on the satellite will be happy and the fringes can just get a gentle even curve. </p><p></p><p></p><p>As for the satellites themselves, and the reason why the footprints are different rather than why Astra don’t document it. As 2A and 2B are different satellites, it is unrealistic to expect them to have exactly the same footprint. They might be in a slightly different position, one might have very slightly more power, or be slightly more clumsy in correcting its position or any number of reasons mean that the fringe of one is not going to be the same as the fringe of the other. But as long as the footprint doesn’t change for the documented target area to Astra it really doesn’t matter, they have happy operators paying to use their space.</p><p></p><p>I have yet to find better answers than these, but they seem to make sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PoloMint, post: 41318, member: 175235"] That’s something I’ve asked a quite a bit also, except the other way around ‘why is 2B north weaker than 2A north?’ as back home in the south of Spain that is the case. Can’t give you a perfect answer but this might help. Firstly don’t expect the footprints to be accurate, they are a guide rather than being drawn up from any measurements. The one for 2D being a better example of this. As far as Astra are concerned as long as the footprint is (slightly) on the conservative side there are no problems with it, as no one will complain that it states a 1.0m should receive it when in fact a 1.1 is needed etc etc. This also allows for transponders to get weaker over time and the documented footprint to remain the same. For the same reason there is no need to accurately portray side lobes and hot spots. If the footprint says you are just off the edge then as far as Astra are concerned you are out of reception area, it doesn’t make any difference that your friend 150 miles further outside the footprint can receive it with a smaller dish than you (as is the case with some people and 2D), that is far to difficult to document, and the number of people that far from the target area is going to be so small that it is financially unviable to print very accurate footprints. As long as the target area is fully covered and the regions where dish sizes change are fairly accurate the operator paying for the channels on the satellite will be happy and the fringes can just get a gentle even curve. As for the satellites themselves, and the reason why the footprints are different rather than why Astra don’t document it. As 2A and 2B are different satellites, it is unrealistic to expect them to have exactly the same footprint. They might be in a slightly different position, one might have very slightly more power, or be slightly more clumsy in correcting its position or any number of reasons mean that the fringe of one is not going to be the same as the fringe of the other. But as long as the footprint doesn’t change for the documented target area to Astra it really doesn’t matter, they have happy operators paying to use their space. I have yet to find better answers than these, but they seem to make sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sky Digital BSkyB, Freesat & Saorsat support forum
Sky & Freesat fringe reception
C4 Transporder
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top