# Why are TV shows still sent via satellite? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 16, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816 "2011-10-16T15:30:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816/21 "2011-10-19T01:27:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Macs are PCs. This won’t end well. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816/22 "2011-10-19T01:34:40Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Figured I’d say it cause somebody will, but Trey Parker specifically said they used to use high-end Sun workstations, but now they all use _ **Macs** _ not PCs… > [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > This won’t end well. **Hail Ants** , I know what you mean. It’s been a long frustrating day and I’m getting crabby. No need to argue the matter. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816/23 "2011-10-19T03:30:10Z")
Maya runs on [Windows, OSX and Linux](http://usa.autodesk.com/maya/system-requirements/). From what I’ve read, they have a mixture. When they were animating and rendering on SGIs, they were scanning all the artwork to Adobe Illustrator files with a Windows-only product, CorelDraw. They probably use Macs for artist workstations and PCs running Windows 7 or some variety of Linux for rendering. That’s how I’d do it - put the pretty and more malware-resistant interface in front of the artists, and put the better bang-for-the-buck systems in the back churning out frames. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816/24 "2011-10-19T04:05:29Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > To define “cheaper” - It costs the producers of South Park far less to hire time at an uplink facility three or four times a month than to maintain a super high speed Internet connection that is capable of transmitting 22 minutes of HD video in 22 minutes. Once the jump to the backbone is installed, there isn’t much to maintain. The backbone is going to be maintained because well, it’s the backbone. Every major city in the US has at least one Tier 1 backbone connection. > [@](#): > > To define “faster” - Even including the time for an employee to drive to the uplink facility, given the speed of the type of connection that the production offices of a TV show could afford, it is probably faster. You’re suggesting a realtime uncompressed feed over the internet is somehow slower than someone driving to some facility and having the information beamed some 330,000 miles into space and back instead of the broadcast dumping onto the backbone at the headpoint and arriving at its destination milliseconds later? > [@](#): > > Are you claiming that there are no delays in routers, switches or peering points? As I said, uplink -\> sat -\> downlink has few points to introduce additional latency. And they have an instant quality check as the downlink operator is recording the show. No, but I am claiming these delays are measured in tens milliseconds. Not the thousands of milliseconds in a satellite uplink delay. Surely we can agree that tens of milliseconds is less than thousands of milliseconds, thus ensuring IP is in fact “faster” than satellite. I don’t see how instant quality check changes the laws of physics, to wit, the speed of light. Also, just as an aside, can satellite handle an uncompressed 1080 feed with room to spare? ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816/25 "2011-10-19T05:35:22Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Once the jump to the backbone is installed, there isn’t much to maintain. The backbone is going to be maintained because well, it’s the backbone. Every major city in the US has at least one Tier 1 backbone connection. Oh, I see…it’s just a _small_ problem then. I’ll just call Google and ask them to drop a line over to the house then. You’ve avoided dealing with the issue of what this would cost. Again, they’d have to pay for this 24/7 service every month. Assuming the contract they would have to get to get that “last mile” service that can stream the same speed as the backbone, is anything like the one I have to deal with as a consumer, they would be locked into service for a year. For a program that is only in production 14 weeks out of the year. > [@](#): > > You’re suggesting a realtime uncompressed feed over the internet is somehow slower than someone driving to some facility and having the information beamed some 330,000 miles into space and back instead of the broadcast dumping onto the backbone at the headpoint and arriving at its destination milliseconds later? Sorry, but appear to be deliberately confusing the meaning of “speed” in this context. How fast the first bit gets there is not particularly important. How fast the rest of the bits get there is. I’m talking about two transportation systems. One has an inherent delay of roughly 3 seconds compared to the other, but vastly greater reliability and bandwidth. > [@](#): > > No, but I am claiming these delays are measured in tens milliseconds. Not the thousands of milliseconds in a satellite uplink delay. Surely we can agree that tens of milliseconds is less than thousands of milliseconds, thus ensuring IP is in fact “faster” than satellite. I don’t see how instant quality check changes the laws of physics, to wit, the speed of light. To abuse your comparison, I’m not talking about the speed of light, but the quantity of light. > [@](#): > > Also, just as an aside, can satellite handle an uncompressed 1080 feed with room to spare? Please, you have GOT to be kidding! Seriously! How do you think every single HD TV program you’ve ever seen was delivered to you? Fiber is the exception, not the rule. As for bandwidth, a C or Ku satellite has from 24 or more transponders. A typical, though older sat like [AMC-3 has 24 C and 24 Ku](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-3) transponders - devices that just re-transmit the signal they receive on a particular frequency band. This chart will show you how many different channels are on each satellite - note[how many standard definition MPEG4 channels are on a single transponder](http://www.lyngsat.com/amc3.html). Note also how many of them are labeled “HD”. The bandwidth needs of the different broadcasters vary. Each engineer selects the parameters for symbol rate, PIDs, etc. But in general, you can fit 5 HD signals on a single transponder, at a very low level of compression. Uploading a program like South Park, they just need a small amount of time on a portion of a transponder. They buy just that block of time, or they use one of the transponders that Comedy Central has already leased. Pop around that site I linked, and move from satellite to satellite. You will see every single TV channel you have ever heard of and hundreds you have never heard of. And all those ones labeled “FEED” are feeds of network programming, sporting events, interviews, syndicated programs, corporate television, music, nearly every piece of media you have ever consumed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-tv-shows-still-sent-via-satellite/599816.md?page=1)