[opendtv] Re: ITFS
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:00:43 -0700
Were all at 2.4 GHz? I'm almost sure ours used a UHF antenna (although
perhaps had a higher frequency response) and the tuner was 450Mhz tops.
But there was a box just below the antenna which may have downconverted the
frequency. I just thought it was an amplifier. Its still up there so
perhaps I'll go check it out sometime.
Dan
John Willkie
<johnwillkie@eart
hlink.net> To
Sent by: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
opendtv-bounce@fr cc
eelists.org
Subject
[opendtv] Re: ITFS
06/24/2008 10:37
AM
Please respond to
opendtv@freelists
.org
The disadvantages of ITFS is that you can't just go down to the BestBuy to
get a receiver; you need a STB, etc, and the 2.4 Ghz frequencies aren't the
best for penetrating walls; most systems use an external parabolic
reflector, the smallest being about the size of a Dish/DirectTV unit.
(I've even seen smaller units here and there, looking like a flattened
couch pillow.)
There are advantages. You can use any modulation system you desire, even
rolling your own. You can flexibly re-allocate channels (there are some
FCC limits having to do with the mission of the licensee.) Also, you can
employ wireless "response channels."
And, yes, there are many, many ITFS/MMDS (Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution System)/OFS (operational fixed systems) in use around the
country. Many are used for data distribution in addition to tv systems.
Dave Schmitt, who hasn't posted here for quite some time, designed and
built the ITFS system operated by the Diocese of Los Angeles, which I
believe is the largest in the world.
John Willkie
Other related posts:
