UK TV in Europe after 2e 2f and 2g are operational

[timo_w2s]

I don't understand this argument that 1N and 2F are the same model and therefore the reception will be the same. Surely the most critical factor here is the shape of the transmitting antenna, which will be different in 2F, and at the fringes of reception that can make a huge difference. The only question in my mind is where is this fringe area as we haven't been given any detailed footprints of a UK spot other than the very general one. But one thing that is for certain is there will be differences somewhere on the outskirts of the beam - and the further away from the intended target (the UK and Ireland) you get the greater the chances for change.

 

[Huevos]

Hardly, when we're talking about the extent of the edges of the satellite footprint. To take it to the extreme 3,000 miles would definitely be relevant.

Paul, you are missing my point. How far off axis you are, not the great circle distance to the beam centre is what is relevant.

 

[Huevos]

1N was designed for shaped pan-European beams at 19°E with steep drop-off. Now that it is stationed at a more easterly orbital position (28°E)

This thread (and most of the others related) seem to read like a record stuck in the same groove. If you go back to the original threads about 1N and how difficult it was going to be none of them said anything about pregnant bulges over the Canaries and suchlike.

Anyway do you all really believe SES Astra are going to make such a big effort to control a small amount of overspill when internet distribution has already come of age?

Also, spot beams per se is not the only way forward. For a company like Sky the most efficient way forward is pan-continental beams in different languages. That way one single channel can be delivered in 25 countries with minimal bandwidth, and still be controlled by local companies and their different encryptions.

 

[timo_w2s]

This thread (and most of the others related) seem to read like a record stuck in the same groove. If you go back to the original threads about 1N and how difficult it was going to be none of them said anything about pregnant bulges over the Canaries and suchlike.

Because we didn't know back then that the so called 1N UK spot would have a bulge? Are you saying that the new Astra 2 satellites UK spots will also have a buldge for the Canaries?

 

[Huevos]

Because we didn't know back then that the so called 1N UK spot would have a bulge? Are you saying that the new Astra 2 satellites UK spots will also have a buldge for the Canaries?

I'm not saying anything of the kind. But that the Canaries bulge is not on any current official footprint maps for the 1n satellite. Is it just a theory added later to explain why the spot beam doesn't perform as some people had expected? And even if there were a secondary spot beam for the Canaries why would it be active while the satellite is being used in this role?

Also, you have to see that 1N is already a pretty tight spot beam. I'm only 1.5º off axis and to get the same signal that a zone 1 minidish would in the central UK I still need a 1.8m dish. And that is under our almost permanently clear skies. I would draw a parallel with the reception of this beam here something similar to the 1ºW K1 spot in the UK. Needs a 1m dish for 24 hour pixel free reception and even then the dish size is borderline, i.e. it won't hold up with dew or rain.

 

[joddle]

I remember the days when Sirius 1 at 5E was pretty much inaccessible in the UK without a very large dish whereas in Scandinavia they got away with tiny dishes... Strange how the latest Sirius 4 is much stronger than Sirius 2/3.

Yes I can agree with this - there will be no need for a bulge for the Canaries with 2f so that means the footprint for the rest of the distribution should in fact be a little stronger as the total area on the ground should in theory be about the same as with the bulge.

 

[Analoguesat]

I'm not saying anything of the kind. But that the Canaries bulge is not on any current official footprint maps for the 1n satellite. Is it just a theory added later to explain why the spot beam doesn't perform as some people had expected?

Its not any on current maps no, but it was on the very first map that got out - that was rapidly withdrawn.

http://www.satellites.co.uk/forums/...tra-1n-initially-28e-then-19e.html#post986257

 

[PaulR]

I don't think I'm missing the point. I completely understand what you are saying about degrees away from the centre of the beam but this surely translates, however irregularly or non-linearly (is there such a word?), with distance from the centre of the beam being relevant. I was, perhaps, guilty of flippancy with my 3,000 miles but the principle is still there.

I must admit I hadn't thought about the theory of the bulge being created to explain the presence. In a way this might show that SES's beam shaping wasn't, at least on 1N, as good as they hoped. However, this could then mean that SES will put more effort into the beam shapes by the time 2F is launched.

If the bulge IS supposed to be there it may be a result of the shape of the reflector and its ancilliaries and as such is probably not switchable.

 

[Analoguesat]

I must admit I hadn't thought about the theory of the bulge being created to explain the presence. In a way this might show that SES's beam shaping wasn't, at least on 1N, as good as they hoped. However, this could then mean that SES will put more effort into the beam shapes by the time 2F is launched.

If the bulge IS supposed to be there it may be a result of the shape of the reflector and its ancilliaries and as such is probably not switchable.

I reckon its supposed to be there - 1N was designed for 19E & was re-purposed for 28E very late (probably when it was realised 2D was starting to degrade). Therefore is beam is not going to be optimal for 28E & some creative drawing took place to minimise the published overspill.

 

[Huevos]

I completely understand what you are saying about degrees away from the centre of the beam but this surely translates, however irregularly or non-linearly (is there such a word?), with distance from the centre of the beam being relevant.

No it doesn't. An extreme example that is easy to understand would be, take for example 2 stars. Viewed from the Earth (in place of the satellite) they might be 1º apart but there is one million light years between them. Take another two that are 1º apart and there is only 10 light years separating them. In the case of the Earth the easiest way to get an idea of how distance is not so important is to get a football and shine a torch on it. When pointed dead centre the beam is well controlled, but pointed near the edges the beam spreads out over a much wide area. If you look at tight spot beams like K1 or 3A the satellite is more or less on the same longitude as the target zone meaning you only get north/south spread, but in the case of 28E the satellite is 30º longitude away from the intended audience which means with the same aerial system you will end up with a much more diffused beam.

However, this could then mean that SES will put more effort into the beam shapes by the time 2F is launched.

2F's aerial is already built and in storage ready for attachment to the satellite.

Anyway one thing is for sure. The satellite manufacturer is always going to err on the side of caution to be absolutely sure the target zone is properly illuminated. This is the number one consideration, and far higher on the list of priorities than stopping a few people in a foreign land with big dishes receiving a bit of overspill.

 

[Huevos]

Also, Paul if you look at the map posted by AS you can see Iceland is the same distance from the beam centre as Spain. The cut off line is for 10º elevation but if they had continued the footprint past that line Iceland is clearly in the 54dBW illumination zone.

 

[andrewcrawford]

Also, Paul if you look at the map posted by AS you can see Iceland is the same distance from the beam centre as Spain. The cut off line is for 10º elevation but if they had continued the footprint past that line Iceland is clearly in the 54dBW illumination zone.

the tip of iceland from what i calculated woul be in the 54 dbmw and the far side should be about 45bdmw

from my calculations north of spain will have about 45dbmw, centre of spain about 42dbmw south of spain will be luck if they get 40dbmw, germany will have about 45dbmw, east germany abotu 42dbmw , west scadnanviia country will have about 46dbmw, east scandavian country might get 40dbmw ata veyr big push

this doesnt take into a accoutn any cold or hot spots but that is how i have calcualted it, if anyone wants to draw upa map with those rough powers with the beam ill look at it and try to see if it fits my calculation, i tried editing the image earlier but i asuck at image maltilation

 

[Satellite74]

Anyway do you all really believe SES Astra are going to make such a big effort to control a small amount of overspill when internet distribution has already come of age?

SES basically do what a customer pays them to do. If it matters to broadcasters and rights holders, and if they feel it is enough of a thorn in their side, then they will pay SES to make the spot beam as tight as possible under today's latest technology.

You don't usually get much charity from the content industry otherwise, just look at how ruthlessly they go after even the pettiest of file sharers... so I would say yes, they are concerned. Especially since in some countries in Northwestern Europe, like Belgium, the Netherlands or Scandinavia, American films and TV series are commonly broadcast with subtitles and without dubbing. Very many viewers in those countries know enough English anyway that they barely need the subtitles at all. Which means that any overspill from the UK, where new U.S. television content also typically airs much sooner than in the other countries, directly cuts into their profits in that other country's market.

If this is no concern for the TV industry, then why do we have beam shaping in the first place. Of course, in the future, when the skies over Europe get more and more crowded, it comes in handy to prevent interference between satellite beams. But for the time being, there isn't much other reason for it, except to restrict fringe viewing as much as possible.

 

[joddle]

Yes of course there is a commercial interest to keep the beams narrowish - but not at any cost. In reallity the fringe people don't get their signals so easily - they have to invest far more in larger dishes and spend more than Jo Average would want just to get some regular TV. Yes there will be an attempt to prevent undue overspill - ie ideally that people in the south of France should not be able to pick up UK tv with an 60 or 80cm dish but there will always be a cost to preventing this and so there is an ecconomic cut off point where the interested bodies will say yes thats good enough for the price we are prepared to pay - and then if people are prepared to spend a small fortune on exotic dishes to pick up signals beyond that they have little power or perhapes even interest to stop them.

 

[Satellite74]

Yes, if it takes a 2m dish on the continent to get UK TV, then many people won't be prepared to spend the kind of money you will need for proper equipment. Profit losses will be negligible. But the current arrangement with 1N must be anything but ideal for UK broadcasters, because much of northwestern Europe now gets Freesat on a 60cm dish. For German TV here in Germany, for example, 60cm is the recommended dish size (45 probably works just as well but might have less bad weather reserve). Which means that many people on the continent already have all the equipment in place to receive UK TV, minus an easily installed second LNB and tilting their dish for prime focus on 1N.

 

[joddle]

Yes for now - but we are expecting some change with 2F! aren't we?

 

[Huevos]

broadcasters and rights holders

You're going off topic. The original post is asking about the technical side of the footprint. If it is not possible to limit the beam from a technical standpoint no amount of waving a copyright stick is going to make a blind bit of difference. But now you have opened that can of worms...

why do we have beam shaping in the first place

Each transponder is 105 watts output. That's the power of an electric light bulb, and we are trying to illuminate some 400,000 square kilometres with it, and receive it on a very small collector. Beam shaping allows all installs in the target area to use the same size collector (or that is the general idea).

SES basically do what a customer pays them to do.

SES does not build the satellites. There is a chain here. It goes: Satellite manufacturer -> Satellite owner -> Transponder lessee -> Broadcaster -> Copyright holder. Each one is answerable to someone and something different. In this technical discussion all we are interested in is the manufacturer. Who is their customer? And what could that customer sue them for? Certainly not copyright. If there were a dispute about the beam characteristics between the manufacturer and the owner it would be that the satellite doesn't properly cover the target area.

Very many viewers in those countries know enough English anyway that they barely need the subtitles at all. Which means that any overspill from the UK, where new U.S. television content also typically airs much sooner than in the other countries, directly cuts into their profits in that other country's market.

I don't know about that. Lots of stuff here airs much earlier than in the UK. And lots of recent stuff airs on TF1 (9E wide beam).

For German TV here in Germany, for example, 60cm is the recommended dish size (45 probably works just as well but might have less bad weather reserve). Which means that many people on the continent already have all the equipment in place to receive UK TV, minus an easily installed second LNB and tilting their dish for prime focus on 1N.

And how many people do that? In Germany how many people have got a second LNB focused on 28E? I'd put money on it that it is not even 1% even though it is very possible technically. And in the UK out of 10 million dishes how many are pointing at 19E? 100,000 if you are lucky. Then convert that to how many of those would upgrade if they found a 1.8m dish was going to be required. This view that rights holders are bothered about a few die-hard satellite hobbiests just doesn't hold water with me.

 

[andrewcrawford]

You're going off topic. The original post is asking about the technical side of the footprint. If it is not possible to limit the beam from a technical standpoint no amount of waving a copyright stick is going to make a blind bit of difference. But now you have opened that can of worms...

Each transponder is 105 watts output. That's the power of an electric light bulb, and we are trying to illuminate some 400,000 square kilometres with it, and receive it on a very small collector. Beam shaping allows all installs in the target area to use the same size collector (or that is the general idea).

SES does not build the satellites. There is a chain here. It goes: Satellite manufacturer -> Satellite owner -> Transponder lessee -> Broadcaster -> Copyright holder. Each one is answerable to someone and something different. In this technical discussion all we are interested in is the manufacturer. Who is their customer? And what could that customer sue them for? Certainly not copyright. If there were a dispute about the beam characteristics between the manufacturer and the owner it would be that the satellite doesn't properly cover the target area.
I don't know about that. Lots of stuff here airs much earlier than in the UK. And lots of recent stuff airs on TF1 (9E wide beam).
And how many people do that? In Germany how many people have got a second LNB focused on 28E? I'd put money on it that it is not even 1% even though it is very possible technically. And in the UK out of 10 million dishes how many are pointing at 19E? 100,000 if you are lucky. Then convert that to how many of those would upgrade if they found a 1.8m dish was going to be required. This view that rights holders are bothered about a few die-hard satellite hobbiests just doesn't hold water with me.

i generally agree with you that the copyright holder being bothered abouta few thousand, but i think what the copyright holders do want is reassurances from teh broadcaster there trying to limit it as much as possiuble so yoru chain goes in reverse, the copyright holder says to the broadcast you are paying for uk rights only so we want you to make sure it is only easily viewable in the uk and not easily viewable outside the uk (not saying nto viewable as some peope will pay for huge dishes which woul allow them to view) , so teh broadcaster keases the transponder s and request it is focused on teh uk only, the owner then needs to make sure they have a beam that really only covers the uk which comes back to the amnafactuer who then using beam shapign technologioes to make the beam focus as much on the uk as possible

 

[Huevos]

yoru chain goes in reverse

No it doesn't. The satellite manufacturer makes the aerial. When you make an aerial the primary concern is it covers the target area, not that it doesn't cover the un-target area. If too much emphasis is put on limiting overspill that is going to be at the detriment of the target area and that will hurt the manufacturer more than any other factor. And to be honest if this copyright nonsense was so important the broadcasters would have refused to use 1N, and come to that 2D.

And when it comes to the reality of the situation 1N is a much harder satellite to receive than 2D ever was. 2D had cold spots over central and eastern Spain and again over parts of central and southern Italy, and a hot spot over Cyprus, so with the new satellite things have evened out in those areas but in general 1N much more difficult. You only need to look at the eastern Europe thread to confirm that.

 

[PaulR]

In the case of the Earth the easiest way to get an idea of how distance is not so important is to get a football and shine a torch on it. When pointed dead centre the beam is well controlled, but pointed near the edges the beam spreads out over a much wide area. If you look at tight spot beams like K1 or 3A the satellite is more or less on the same longitude as the target zone meaning you only get north/south spread, but in the case of 28E the satellite is 30º longitude away from the intended audience which means with the same aerial system you will end up with a much more diffused beam.

So what you're talking about is the angle that the beam edges meet the earth's surface. In effect the tangent. Which I quite agree will cause a diffusion at the furthest point. But to say that distance is not relevent isn't right. Most people would think you mean the distance from the centre of the beam across the earth's surface and there is a correlation there.

2F's aerial is already built and in storage ready for attachment to the satellite.

Which doesn't mean that it couldn't have already been made with UK as a target area.