As you know, Echostar and VOOM acquire these licenses that can transmit over the air HD/SD channels and provides internet as well. I just received information that both companies are visiting the site in France that is currently using this technology.
MVDDS: VOOM and Echostar going to France to see the model
- Thread starter Sean Mota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 4K
Here are a few links:
MDS International, SA : this is the company in France using the Technology.
Technical PDF file of the technology - very slow
Reception Product
MDS International, SA : this is the company in France using the Technology.
TV & Internet Broadcast
- Up to 2000 Digital MPEG2 Channels.
- Up to 6 Gb/s Wireless Internet / Intranet Access Capacity
- More than 200 km Radius Range with a 4 watt transmitter.
- Very low cost ...
Technical PDF file of the technology - very slow
Reception Product
Interesting technology.
I wonder if Voom and Charlie are sitting beside each other in First Class?
I wonder if Voom and Charlie are sitting beside each other in First Class?
If they are sitting next to each other, I hope they are talking not only in using the technolog but to sharing it for LIL HD.
If it's just a matter of using pre-existing cell phone towers why isn't anyone using it already? I know Dish has a deal with SBC and SBC is tied into Cingular, so you'd think Dish Network would have a very easy inroad to some towers there.
This seems like it could be THE answer for HD LIL.
This seems like it could be THE answer for HD LIL.
I believe Scott said that Dish was doing something with SBC that involved these licenses. Maybe Scott can chime in and repeat this. Remember that neither dish nor VOOM alone would be able to cover the entire DMA but I think if they combine forces (which I doubt they will do) they could get to cover a reasonable amount of DMAs. Not only for LIL HD but also to compete in the internet areana and true VOD (Just like cable).
Getting space on cellular towers is not as simple as it may seem. The vast majority on towers out there are owned by a tower company who then leases the space to each carrier. Also the vast majority of them are loaded to near maximum capacity with antennas and coax as it stands now, this would leave very little space for waveguide and a horizontal pol 360 degree radome. I am sure it could happen but it would not be as simple as Dish network calling up Cingular (whom I happen to work for) and saying :"we want to use your tower, thanks"
Not to mention the need for multiple antennas to be installed on your house. Could you imagine 6 different types of antenna on your house somewhere. And then the need to match the level of each antenna using attenuators, or cloth on each antenna. Oh and imagine if water got in your coax.... kiss your reception goodbye. Oh and rain or ice would require re-adjustment of the antannas... CRAZY.
I can see how they would be dealing with this in France and europe because the philosophy of people is different over there. They accept not being covered by cellular because the carriers over there DO NOT cover low population areas. Now in the US everyone expects to be covered perfectly at all time regardless of the area they live in. Especially the people who want to try and "screw over" their local phone company by switching to cellular and then realize they have crappy coverage in their basement. Give me a break.
OK I will stop ranting now.
I think once they simplify the "antenna system" and constant adjustment needs this will be a good system for those in areas of low clutter.
Not to mention the need for multiple antennas to be installed on your house. Could you imagine 6 different types of antenna on your house somewhere. And then the need to match the level of each antenna using attenuators, or cloth on each antenna. Oh and imagine if water got in your coax.... kiss your reception goodbye. Oh and rain or ice would require re-adjustment of the antannas... CRAZY.
I can see how they would be dealing with this in France and europe because the philosophy of people is different over there. They accept not being covered by cellular because the carriers over there DO NOT cover low population areas. Now in the US everyone expects to be covered perfectly at all time regardless of the area they live in. Especially the people who want to try and "screw over" their local phone company by switching to cellular and then realize they have crappy coverage in their basement. Give me a break.
OK I will stop ranting now.
I think once they simplify the "antenna system" and constant adjustment needs this will be a good system for those in areas of low clutter.
Why would anyone need to use a cell phone tower? Based on the spec posted, the service has a range of 200KM, which is about 124 miles. If you put an antenna on the top of the Empire State building. You could reach as far north as Hartford and as far south as Philadelphia.
This is about the same range as a standard UHF or VHF television transmission.
This is about the same range as a standard UHF or VHF television transmission.
So will they have to put a headend at each tower? I can't see each cell tower erecting a C-Band dish. Even with PanAmSat's new HD neighborhood there are still a few sats to look at. So this would mean the site would need multiple satellites.
Just found this thread. Very interesting. But if this all only a terrestrial system, how does this provide LIL HD when they already exist over the air. Anyways its interesting that Voom and Dish have a split between the licenses. Is this another sign of a friendly merger that could take place. Charlie has been referencing them in a lot of Chats recently. Currently my market is licensed to Voom.
BFG,
I have been thinking the very same thing. I certainly don't wish to spread unsubstantiated rumor, but this would certainly explain why E* has openly displayed so little concern regarding D*'s HD plans. A number of people like to bash VOOM (deservedly so at times), but they have certainly helped raise HDTV awareness with the other sat providers. Can't wait to see how the cards are dealt and the hands played.
I have been thinking the very same thing. I certainly don't wish to spread unsubstantiated rumor, but this would certainly explain why E* has openly displayed so little concern regarding D*'s HD plans. A number of people like to bash VOOM (deservedly so at times), but they have certainly helped raise HDTV awareness with the other sat providers. Can't wait to see how the cards are dealt and the hands played.
BFG said:
This seems like a*very* good point. Why should we need to re-transmit local OTA brodcasts OTA?
Are we basically implying here that local channels do such a HORRENDOUS job of transmission that it behooves the satellite providers to re-do the job for 'em? I mean, I think I could get behind that argument -- but it does chafe me a bit that the argument could be true.
It's absurd that the cable companies 'n local broadcasters have banded together to protect the inferior-local-signal situation. If my local affiliate won't broadcast properly, I should be able to pick up a national feed -- it isn't my fault the locals have all become milk-fed cable junkies depending on another firm to transmit their signal for 'em because they can't be bothered to do it right themselves.
I think you may be missing the point of the new service.
It is just another means for providing television service delivery. With up to 2000 channels covering a radius of 124 miles, this surpasses the capability of both local cable and satellite service. A provider no longer has to worry about the huge investment in local infrastructure. A provider would have to place their antenna at a high elevation where the local televisions stations locate their antennas. They would have to be able to deliver all their channels to the transmission antenna either by satellite or terrestrial (fiber). To receive the service, their standard antenna, that has line of site to the transmitting antenna, would be mounted by either the consumer or a local service company.
I can see a quick return in investment in all the major cities. If a company like Voom can broadcast all their channel plus all the OTA using their service, they eliminate the need for two antennas. They would not have to worry about using all their Satellite capacity for local channels, as D* will have to using their strategy.
I'd be curious to see the cost analysis for the business case of using this technology versus using local cable or satellite. Not only the equipment cost, but also the cost for installation and service.
It is just another means for providing television service delivery. With up to 2000 channels covering a radius of 124 miles, this surpasses the capability of both local cable and satellite service. A provider no longer has to worry about the huge investment in local infrastructure. A provider would have to place their antenna at a high elevation where the local televisions stations locate their antennas. They would have to be able to deliver all their channels to the transmission antenna either by satellite or terrestrial (fiber). To receive the service, their standard antenna, that has line of site to the transmitting antenna, would be mounted by either the consumer or a local service company.
I can see a quick return in investment in all the major cities. If a company like Voom can broadcast all their channel plus all the OTA using their service, they eliminate the need for two antennas. They would not have to worry about using all their Satellite capacity for local channels, as D* will have to using their strategy.
I'd be curious to see the cost analysis for the business case of using this technology versus using local cable or satellite. Not only the equipment cost, but also the cost for installation and service.
If the FCC were smart, they would have mandated that all stations in a DMA pool their resources and broadcast from a few locations all repeating the same signal to cover the entire DMA. This way, the end user can select one primary location they receive *all* their locals OTA and not have to worry about multidirectional antennas, but rather unidirectional antennas of this sort.
Close, But No Cigar (read on)
Most DMAs are not unidirectional, but extend from the DMA's center (usually the major city the DMA is named after). Even with mutiantenna setups (such as Baltimore, MD's Television Hill candelabra), there is *some* directionality due to where an antenna is located on the candelabra.
For Washington, DC, a candelabra structure simply is impossible due to a rather nasty piece of *Federal* (not local) legislation, the Height Act of 1903, which bars *any* structure from exceeding the height of the Washington Monument. On top of that. activist groups have been fighting multi-antenna towers (the ongoing issue with American Tower in DC's Tenleytown neighborhood is example of to what lengths these groups will go).
For a DMA the size of Washington, DC, and to avoid Height Act restrictions, you would have really two choices: get a waiver to the Height Act (which would require going not just to the DC City Council, but to Congress) or get some sort of *private bill* passed for a specific structure that would provide immunity from the Height Act (the latter would be easier than the former, but you would *still* need siting approval first)
floepie said:
Most DMAs are not unidirectional, but extend from the DMA's center (usually the major city the DMA is named after). Even with mutiantenna setups (such as Baltimore, MD's Television Hill candelabra), there is *some* directionality due to where an antenna is located on the candelabra.
For Washington, DC, a candelabra structure simply is impossible due to a rather nasty piece of *Federal* (not local) legislation, the Height Act of 1903, which bars *any* structure from exceeding the height of the Washington Monument. On top of that. activist groups have been fighting multi-antenna towers (the ongoing issue with American Tower in DC's Tenleytown neighborhood is example of to what lengths these groups will go).
For a DMA the size of Washington, DC, and to avoid Height Act restrictions, you would have really two choices: get a waiver to the Height Act (which would require going not just to the DC City Council, but to Congress) or get some sort of *private bill* passed for a specific structure that would provide immunity from the Height Act (the latter would be easier than the former, but you would *still* need siting approval first)
Dear Satellite Guys.
I read with interest the thinking and the questions of your readers......
I send you a PDF file containing all informations for users installers
(download manual here)
To summarize and this are today exclusive informations for you never give for any at this time:
Because power allocated by FCC is very low 14 dBm EIRP the US design system made by MDSi are special for FCC America rules and very low cost to use many repeaters cheaper in price and in deployment and daily runing
A 14 dBm repeater ( Not the main station) are powered by a solar panel and a small wind mill KIT if main is not available; it use 6 watts in 12 volts DC
Necessary Wave guide at 12 Ghz are not used and replaced by a special coaxial cable for KU Band
Time life of this repeater are 20 years with no fail
Capacity using the FCC band are 1 Ghz and data speed capability depending of modulation are 1.5 or 3 Gigabits by cell.
Cost of a cell with this capacity fueled by sun and wind are 30,000 US$
Coverage Radius with Omni antenna are up to 16 km
User antenna in 4 km radius are flat and square 20cm
User antenna with HyCAnC Embedded with C/N Barled indication ( World patent) are easy to install by a children 10 years old with any specialised tool and "truck turns" foor installation are not required.
"Nota"
The manual I send you about explanations and care for antenna installation are made before MDSi make the HYCAnC embedded processor managing the near to far control are inside the antenna for easy C/N max quality pointing.
Now because our transmitters main station modulators are DVB-MC/S compliant but HyCAnC MDSI patent upgraded, with special filters any HDTV or DTH set top box can be use at home. Only a small flat antenna 20 or 40 or 54 cm are use powered by existing STB.
For any more informations do not hesitate to mail to us
I read with interest the thinking and the questions of your readers......
I send you a PDF file containing all informations for users installers
(download manual here)
To summarize and this are today exclusive informations for you never give for any at this time:
Because power allocated by FCC is very low 14 dBm EIRP the US design system made by MDSi are special for FCC America rules and very low cost to use many repeaters cheaper in price and in deployment and daily runing
A 14 dBm repeater ( Not the main station) are powered by a solar panel and a small wind mill KIT if main is not available; it use 6 watts in 12 volts DC
Necessary Wave guide at 12 Ghz are not used and replaced by a special coaxial cable for KU Band
Time life of this repeater are 20 years with no fail
Capacity using the FCC band are 1 Ghz and data speed capability depending of modulation are 1.5 or 3 Gigabits by cell.
Cost of a cell with this capacity fueled by sun and wind are 30,000 US$
Coverage Radius with Omni antenna are up to 16 km
User antenna in 4 km radius are flat and square 20cm
User antenna with HyCAnC Embedded with C/N Barled indication ( World patent) are easy to install by a children 10 years old with any specialised tool and "truck turns" foor installation are not required.
"Nota"
The manual I send you about explanations and care for antenna installation are made before MDSi make the HYCAnC embedded processor managing the near to far control are inside the antenna for easy C/N max quality pointing.
Now because our transmitters main station modulators are DVB-MC/S compliant but HyCAnC MDSI patent upgraded, with special filters any HDTV or DTH set top box can be use at home. Only a small flat antenna 20 or 40 or 54 cm are use powered by existing STB.
For any more informations do not hesitate to mail to us
