5. 5
• Low roll-off allows to increase
symbolrate within same bandwidth
• Eg. increase symbol rate from 30
MBaud to 32.8MBaud
(10% throughput increase)
• Power loss of 0.4 dB can be fully
recovered by applying predistortion
at transmitter
• DVB-S2X + predistortion
= 10% more channels in DTH service
0.4dB power loss
RO 20% RO 10%
20%
10%
36MHz 36MHz
30Mbaud 32.8Mbaud
Advantage of Lower Roll-off
6. 6
Advantage of Finer MODCOD Granularity
• Requested coverage (Egypt)
• EIRP footprint definitions
• DVB-S2 (27.5Mbaud; 25% RO) specific contours for 99.5% availability
• DVB-S2X (33Mbaud, 10%RO) specific contours for 99.5% availabilility
DVB-S2X
16% higher bitrate
44 dBW
46.5 dBW
8PSK 5/6
8PSK 3/4
Or smaller dishes !
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.
AVDO : As mentioned on Wednesday
I and also the architect from the eng team are far from convinced that this is the best solution for WB (as well as for feasibility, futire proveness as time to market)=. Keep options open and be carefull not to present it as the only option.
I am far from sure that all UC 6 are possible in the current MCD chassis => complex mechanics and wiring and backpanels (we have to route connectors directly to the add-in boards not passing via the mainboard). This will not directly be from an HW point similar to the other MCX chasis/configs.