wireless

[tglc]

If they can bring the signal all the way from the sky, why can't they bring the signal inside the house wireless. So that I don't need all those cables.

[davhol]

For the same reason you need windows to see daylight in your house. Sunlight can't penetrate your roof. DBS signals can't penetrate your house!

[tglc]

For the same reason you need windows to see daylight in your house. Sunlight can't penetrate your roof. DBS signals can't penetrate your house!

Actually what I want to say is once they bring the signal in from the dish to the inside of the house can they bring a transmitter and a wireless receviers instead of all these cables. Probably because of cost but then they managed to get signal all the way from the sky and still give us free dishes....

[Scott Greczkowski]

I am sure you could, the system would need to be two way so that the correct satellite and polarity could be selected, and then if you have more then one TV in the house this system would need additional transmitters per each TV.

Because of all the logistics it would be really expensive to do.

[boba]

You could use a satellite receiver with a UHF remote to tune the channels. At the receiver you could use a video sender at 2.4ghz to send the signal to one tv. Now as Scott said for a different channel you need another receiver another sender at a different frequency or(channel). Now how do you keep the signal in your house so it dosen't cause interference at your neighbors, or you neighbors cordless phone dosen't interefere with your reception. It really is impractical compared to running cable and having reliable reception.

[abospaum]

Almost everyone in my neighborhood has either D* or E* so I can't imagine the interference that I would get. I wonder if it would be as bad as my baby monitors.

My cordless phones in the house are 2.4Ghz and often has a lot of noise. I have a 57" TV and the signal sucks as it is for SD. Why not just degrade that signal further?

I assume that the FCC would also want to take part in the licensing of the different frequencies everyone would use.

You could say the same thing about surround sound speakers. Hey it would be great to do that wireless but unless you have mega $$$ the sound will absolutely suck. Even if you do have the money I don't know what quality you would have.

[tlc1]

Almost everyone in my neighborhood has either D* or E* so I can't imagine the interference that I would get. I wonder if it would be as bad as my baby monitors.

My cordless phones in the house are 2.4Ghz and often has a lot of noise. I have a 57" TV and the signal sucks as it is for SD. Why not just degrade that signal further?

I assume that the FCC would also want to take part in the licensing of the different frequencies everyone would use.

You could say the same thing about surround sound speakers. Hey it would be great to do that wireless but unless you have mega $$$ the sound will absolutely suck. Even if you do have the money I don't know what quality you would have.


Just wondering what technology they use to send signal from satellite to dish...Seems like people are not complainting about interference from say all the "dishes" in the neighborhood. Can they just bring the signal inside the house and install mini dish at the receiver. I am not a technology bluff but just curious about the idea.

[davhol]

The "problem" is that, unlike cable or a regular roof antenna, Satellite TV (Dish, DirecTV) requires the receiver to "talk" to the dish and for the dish to send signals to the receiver. It is a two-way conversation. Your dish is "looking" at two satellites, each with about 32 transponders (transmitters) and each transponder has a "polarity" that the dish has to discriminate between. When you tune to a channel on the satellite receiver, the receiver sends a signal to the "switch" which causes the digital data stream to be decoded in a certain fashion so that you can get the channel. Each separate receiver has to talk to the switch separately from the others so that the right signals can get to the right receivers. That is why folks are saying it is impractical to do a wireless dish-to-receiver solution. You'd have to have a fairly wide-band transmitter/receiver on each satellite receiver (expensive) and at the dish so you could get the signals. If you want to get even more expensive, you could have a mini-cable head-end system that would put all the signals on a cable-type hookup which you could, conceivably transmit to each TV (there are such units used in large apartment complexes). So, the bottom line is that each satellite receiver has to have a 2-way path to the dish for you to receive and tune a station, and the most practical and least expensive method is to have a cable going from the dish (switch) to the receiver.

[Jacob S]

I think it will be more likely for a new technology to come out where the antenna could be inside the house such as a whip antenna than to make the dish wireless between the dish and the receiver.