New Azteca mux in AMC16 on 85W

[magnigyro]

found on lyngsat, anybody can verify this info?

How strong? Same data as 93W! What happen now, we will have 2 sources or the old one soon will go?

 

[DJ Rob]

I'm not seeing it here at all. I even manually plugged in the numbers on Lyngsat and there's no signal there for me.

 

[Mikhel]

I find it odd that it has the same values as the channels at 93ºW, also i don't get even a sniff of the signal in here.

M.

 

[qwert1515]

On the vertical polarity at that frequency there is a data DVB-S2 transponder with a large bandwidth.
On the horizontal polarity there is free space there, but no transponder active.

 

[Mr Tony]

It doesnt show on here in MN with a manual scan
There is a DVB-S2 TP at 11980 V but that is an IP Transponder

edit: just rescanned with the Sathawk and yep it logged 11980 V and the symbol rate for that IP mux. Theres a bunch of them on this sat

 

[B.J.]

On the vertical polarity at that frequency there is a data DVB-S2 transponder with a large bandwidth.
On the horizontal polarity there is free space there, but no transponder active.

It doesnt show on here in MN with a manual scan
There is a DVB-S2 TP at 11980 V but that is an IP Transponder

edit: just rescanned with the Sathawk and yep it logged 11980 V and the symbol rate for that IP mux. Theres a bunch of them on this sat

I agree that there are a lot of IP/DVB transponders on that sat (I think I counted 10 on the vertical side), but I don't think there is one at 11980V, in fact 11980 should be a null between the 11960V and 12000V transponders. Ie, unless I'm all mixed up (which isn't uncommon), 11980 would be a horizontal transponder.
I couldn't find a freq map of AMC-16 at the SES web page, but I think in general, for even numbered AMC sats, 11980 should be horizontal I think.

 

[Mr Tony]

I cant check right now as the Sathawk is on 91W but I could have sworn 11980 was V

 

[qwert1515]

I checked with the BLSA, 11980 V is a null, there is a transponder right now at 11980 H.

EDIT: What I meant before was that there could not be a transponder at "11985 V" because it would be inside the bandwidth of a larger transponder.

 

[B.J.]

I cant check right now as the Sathawk is on 91W but I could have sworn 11980 was V

I'm not positive about my observations either, as I didn't really have that sat saved for video channels, but the transponders I looked at all had the SRs that have been reported for the IP transponders on that sat, and I was on vertical. It has me a bit nervous though, since two of you were seeing the transponder on horizontal. I did one of my spectrum scans, which showed an IP channel virtually every 40 MHz from 11720 through 12080, and I was running slaved from another receiver set to vertical. I didn't check to see that all had the same SR, but the 5 or 6 I checked did.
I'm not sure why the freq plans of AMC-16 seems to be missing. They're available for most of the other AMC sats, but I couldn't find AMC-16 for some reason. I looked at another even AMC sat, which was vertical on 11960, and it had a vertical beacon, but AMC-16 has a horizontal beacon, so I'm not sure.
But it sure seemed like 11960 and 12000 were vertical on my scan.

 

[guapoharry]

More junk data on Lyngsat..., IMO

 

[photoman76]

It couldn't possibly have been there. Transponder 15 is one of the 19 DVB-S2 muxes for Echostar VIP-TV IPTV service. There are only 5 free transponders on AMC 16. Transponders 14 ,21, 22, 23, and 24. XStreamHD will probably fill two of those transponders when they start service around April.

 

[SatelliteAV]

Errors occur all the time on Lyngsat. That is what happens when the site is hosted in Europe and must rely on reports that cannot be verified by the webmaster.

Probably someone scanned wrong and emailed a report without confirming. Drop a email to Lyngsat with this information and he will correct the site.

 

[neljtorres]

I hope it's a mistake because we in Puerto Rico are going to loose those channels!
amc 16 at 85 has no coverage for us!

 

[Mr Tony]

Nelson
You have nothing to worry about

 

[B.J.]

Errors occur all the time on Lyngsat. That is what happens when the site is hosted in Europe and must rely on reports that cannot be verified by the webmaster.

Probably someone scanned wrong and emailed a report without confirming. Drop a email to Lyngsat with this information and he will correct the site.

I guess it's possible that someone was on the wrong sat, and I've been off by 2 or 3 sats before, but my real suspicion is that it was grabbed off another database and submitted to Lyngsat without checking. I belong to one of those private databases where people post info like this so that it doesn't become public. Well the one I belong to picked up that same incorrect info several weeks ago, either by mistake, or sometimes they put bogus data in there to catch people stealing their info. I'm guessing that the info on Lyngsat came from this, or some other similar database, and was uploaded without checking it. But that's just a guess. It just seems like too much of a coincidence that this incorrect info would show up on one database, then a couple weeks later also show up on another database.

 

[neljtorres]

Nelson
You have nothing to worry about

Thanks Ice!

 

[neljtorres]

A friend of mine here in Puerto Rico posted in my forum that he caught the Aztecas channles with a 5.5 footer signal 82 and 55 quality and in the lyngsat footprint does not show coverage for PR. But he caught them in AMC on 85!

 

[magnigyro]

A friend of mine here in Puerto Rico posted in my forum that he caught the Aztecas channles with a 5.5 footer signal 82 and 55 quality and in the lyngsat footprint does not show coverage for PR. But he caught them in AMC on 85!

Thanks nel, may be I must aim one of my antennas to 85W, all can happen!

 

[B.J.]

The point is though, that the reports of this mux on AMC-16 at 85 cannot be correct, because there is no vertical transponder at the reported freq, and a signal at the freq/SR reported just isn't possible. The reports are almost certainly wrong, either they have the polarity wrong, or they are seeing the wrong satellite, or some other error. Since the parameters are exactly the same as the same signal on G25 at 93, I think whoever first reported this finding was seeing the wrong satellite, either aimed at the wrong sat, or perhaps had side lobes bad enough that they were picking up signals from 93 while aimed at 85. On a couple occasions, when my feedhorn wasn't at the right FL, I have gotten strong locks from transponders 6 deg away from where I was aiming, so it is possible.
However the fact that more than one person reported this on different groups suggests that some people didn't really observe the signal, but rather copied the info.

 

[WTguy]

I have one of my CM 84e's aimed at AMC16 and scan it at least once a night (more on weekends) and have not had any find of Azteca signals. In fact the only activity I have seen close to this was a feed at 11980 h for a HD game feed not long ago.
I think the reporter to Lyngsat erred on the satellite, although 8 degrees is a bit off. Over the years I have used at least 4 listings and none of them are perfect but they have all offered me some new info at one time or another.