Reading a post on here a while back about a company that sold wireless cable tv by sending the signal over a microwave. What band was this and are the antenna good for anything?
Heartland Antenna
- Thread starter Techfizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 6
- Views 4K
- Status
To my knowledge, most of these "wireless cable" operations sent signals to customers' homes over the MMDS & ITFS bands ( [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_cable"]Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mmds_dish1.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Mmds_dish1.jpg/220px-Mmds_dish1.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/7e/Mmds_dish1.jpg/220px-Mmds_dish1.jpg[/ame] for more info ).
As I understand it, in many (most? all?) areas, these bands have now either been bought (MMDS) or leased on a long term basis (ITFS) by Clear, the Sprint/Google/intel/etc funded WiMax provider. Something tells me they might get a lot more use for WiMax than they ever did for wireless cable.
A few links about how Sprint, in particular, has leased many of the ITFS channels, which they have now given those rights to Clear.
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/sprint_spectrum.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-06-2001/0001464087&EDATE
The only real benefit of wireless cable, IMO, was that they could completely avoid retransmission consent, as most systems received locals OTA and integrated them into a guide along with the "cable" networks that were sent over MMDS & ITFS. (Due to the instructional nature of the ITFS band, some wireless cable systems also had up to 8 different channels of nothing but college telecourses.)
The antennas for "wireless cable" - could still be used for WiMax, or even for WiFi. You might even try them for UHF OTA digital TV, but I'm not sure the results would be great unless you live near the OTA stations you want to receive, and therefore do not require a highly sensitive antenna.
I can't wait for Clear to come to my area with WiMax. They promise to be price competitive with both Cable & Phone companies, which could both use the competition IMO.
As I understand it, in many (most? all?) areas, these bands have now either been bought (MMDS) or leased on a long term basis (ITFS) by Clear, the Sprint/Google/intel/etc funded WiMax provider. Something tells me they might get a lot more use for WiMax than they ever did for wireless cable.
A few links about how Sprint, in particular, has leased many of the ITFS channels, which they have now given those rights to Clear.
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/sprint_spectrum.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-06-2001/0001464087&EDATE
The only real benefit of wireless cable, IMO, was that they could completely avoid retransmission consent, as most systems received locals OTA and integrated them into a guide along with the "cable" networks that were sent over MMDS & ITFS. (Due to the instructional nature of the ITFS band, some wireless cable systems also had up to 8 different channels of nothing but college telecourses.)
The antennas for "wireless cable" - could still be used for WiMax, or even for WiFi. You might even try them for UHF OTA digital TV, but I'm not sure the results would be great unless you live near the OTA stations you want to receive, and therefore do not require a highly sensitive antenna.
I can't wait for Clear to come to my area with WiMax. They promise to be price competitive with both Cable & Phone companies, which could both use the competition IMO.
Yea that what happened in this area
We have a few places that tried TV signal over wireless. Sure enough Bridgemaxx purchased teton wireless. They had both wireless internet and TV. They cut the number of tv channels down to like 12. Then used the rest for wimax. Since Teton owned the signal for (not the whole 5ghz but like 5.8 or whatever it is). 5ghz or 3ghz band or something like that. Sure they had a few people complain when they took down the TV channels. Not sure why they keep it all on. Got the impression talking to the area rep. THey still make enough money to make it worth there will. They also left the old wireless system up to. For areas that wimaxx couldn't reach. (Long distance) The interesting part of the old system is. It used a flat square white antenna that went to a cable modem. So between the tv and internet. It was like you got cable in your home. All the other wifi providers just used 2.4 ghz antennas with booster. The current place we talk to uses motorola stuff with antennas that look like a sat dish and a white antenna on the end. I heard they had great resaults with that stuff. I told them if motorola just came out with wimaxx that used the existing system. THey would get the best of both. Little boxes for local close to antenna areas. Then great long range signal.
Later,
Josh
We have a few places that tried TV signal over wireless. Sure enough Bridgemaxx purchased teton wireless. They had both wireless internet and TV. They cut the number of tv channels down to like 12. Then used the rest for wimax. Since Teton owned the signal for (not the whole 5ghz but like 5.8 or whatever it is). 5ghz or 3ghz band or something like that. Sure they had a few people complain when they took down the TV channels. Not sure why they keep it all on. Got the impression talking to the area rep. THey still make enough money to make it worth there will. They also left the old wireless system up to. For areas that wimaxx couldn't reach. (Long distance) The interesting part of the old system is. It used a flat square white antenna that went to a cable modem. So between the tv and internet. It was like you got cable in your home. All the other wifi providers just used 2.4 ghz antennas with booster. The current place we talk to uses motorola stuff with antennas that look like a sat dish and a white antenna on the end. I heard they had great resaults with that stuff. I told them if motorola just came out with wimaxx that used the existing system. THey would get the best of both. Little boxes for local close to antenna areas. Then great long range signal.
Later,
Josh
Last edited:
some odd finds!
I was reading a book at my local library about mini satellite dishes. 1994
Il have to get my scanner working but i found some neat stuff.
A 16 foot
paraclipse dish! I thought they only went up to 12.
A sidecar that ataches to a primestar receiver to make it Digicipher II compliant!
A picture of the prototype dish network system it was goint to use a Echostar SR-800 receiver, it was going to use videocrypt for encryption.
Heres a list of the new DBS satellite tv systems brands that were proposed for 95
2. It said that primestar went digital in 1994 what dish/receiver did they use before that?
Heres a pic of the book it can be had for about $5 shipped on the web and contains a wealth of info about the roots of DBS.
I was reading a book at my local library about mini satellite dishes. 1994
Il have to get my scanner working but i found some neat stuff.
A 16 foot
paraclipse dish! I thought they only went up to 12.A sidecar that ataches to a primestar receiver to make it Digicipher II compliant!
A picture of the prototype dish network system it was goint to use a Echostar SR-800 receiver, it was going to use videocrypt for encryption.
Heres a list of the new DBS satellite tv systems brands that were proposed for 95
Directsat Corp Combined FCC licenses with echostar
Direct Brodcast Satellite Corp (DBS) at 61.5 (voom?)
Tempo at 119 and 166 west (alphastar?
Dominion Video Satellite at 199 west
Advanced Comunications Corp 100 west and 119 west two-interactive system proposed
Continetal Satellite Corp at 61.5 and 160 west
1. Directv's advanced receiver had a wideband data port. Directv stated that in the future (this was in 1994, there is going to be a HD receiver Decoder add on (like a 4dtv HD-200 unit) for HDTV use. Did this ever happen?Direct Brodcast Satellite Corp (DBS) at 61.5 (voom?)
Tempo at 119 and 166 west (alphastar?
Dominion Video Satellite at 199 west
Advanced Comunications Corp 100 west and 119 west two-interactive system proposed
Continetal Satellite Corp at 61.5 and 160 west
2. It said that primestar went digital in 1994 what dish/receiver did they use before that?
Heres a pic of the book it can be had for about $5 shipped on the web and contains a wealth of info about the roots of DBS.
IIRC, that MMDS dish is pretty close in frequency to WiFi.
I found a couple on the curb somewhere. The existing coax is in kind of poor condition but it would be interesting to solder on some pigtails with a proper connector to test how far away you could get some PC's or routers to talk to each other.
I found a couple on the curb somewhere. The existing coax is in kind of poor condition but it would be interesting to solder on some pigtails with a proper connector to test how far away you could get some PC's or routers to talk to each other.
i also read it goes out in the rain
thats why it was a flop
the higher you go up the spectrum, the more rain isssues you have, thats why c-band doesnt go out (super rarely) in heavy rains
0MHZ--------------------------------10GHZ
More Rain Fade
---------------------------------------->>>
Thats why mini ku dishes are more rain prone unless you get a bigger dish.
You cant get satellite tv thorugh a wall, yet you can FM or AM
If I had my say, Dish and Directv would of been broadcasted on MUCH lower freqeuncies then current satellite freq's. Imagine being able to watch dish in the basement on a little 5" LCD receiver, or being able to ride down the road watching dish without having a $500+ mobile tracking satellie antenna. Satellite radio (xm or sirius) is a little bit more forgiving, but you still cant listen inside without a outdoor repeating antenna. Then theres cable, but you cant have it anywhere.
Satellite Tv should of been brodcasted on a small band of megahertz freqencies, using one channel a freq's no transponders, compression or mulitpath. The result? perfectly clear picture with no artifacts or compression.
Just my .02
thats why it was a flop
the higher you go up the spectrum, the more rain isssues you have, thats why c-band doesnt go out (super rarely) in heavy rains
0MHZ--------------------------------10GHZ
More Rain Fade
---------------------------------------->>>
Thats why mini ku dishes are more rain prone unless you get a bigger dish.
You cant get satellite tv thorugh a wall, yet you can FM or AM
If I had my say, Dish and Directv would of been broadcasted on MUCH lower freqeuncies then current satellite freq's. Imagine being able to watch dish in the basement on a little 5" LCD receiver, or being able to ride down the road watching dish without having a $500+ mobile tracking satellie antenna. Satellite radio (xm or sirius) is a little bit more forgiving, but you still cant listen inside without a outdoor repeating antenna. Then theres cable, but you cant have it anywhere.
Satellite Tv should of been brodcasted on a small band of megahertz freqencies, using one channel a freq's no transponders, compression or mulitpath. The result? perfectly clear picture with no artifacts or compression.
Just my .02
- Status
