FTM - OTA capable, OTA friendly or OTA hostile??

[texasbrit]

I posted some of this in response to another post but I thought it might deserve its own post. We are told that the new receiver/DVR is FTM-capable but there is virtually no information out there as to what the product will be. Apart from the actual product details and price, it seems it has to be a sophisticated stacking system which puts all the transponder sets from the different satellites into a single/multiple frequency band which can be decoded by the firmware in the H20/HR20. Old receivers can be supported by an add-on destacker, or (it seems to me) by stacking the FTM below an existing multiswitch, giving the remaining multiswitch outputs the traditional voltage/tone selection system for "old" receivers. Does anyone know (Earl?) anything more about the FTM. And in particular, how we will be able to handle OTA?
It seesm to me that are three possibilities for OTA.
First, that the FTM will actually include OTA. To use multiswitch terminology, the FTM will have to be a "6xn" to accommodate the four cables from the dish plus the two flexport inputs, just like the WB68 is a 6x8. It COULD be a "7xn" with a port for OTA, and the OTA signal separated out in the receiver. That would be very nice, but I'm not counting on it.
Second, the FTM could output a signal that overlaps the OTA band and so there will be NO possibility of diplexing OTA. That would be unfortunate to say the least.
Thirdly, the FTM might not handle OTA but outputs a signal that leaves the OTA frequency band (below 806 Mhz today) empty. Then you could use diplexers - maybe they would have to be wider band than the ones used today - to insert the OTA signals below the FTM ones.

Has anyone got any real information about the FTM and OTA??

[briloop]

What is FTM?

[pgiralt]

Earl has said that more information on FTM is coming in January.

[Herdfan]

FTM = Frequency Translation Module

There is no reason they could not allow an OTA band. The FTM will stack 2 signals on one line and there is no reason it couldn't stack 3 signals. But there would need to be an OTA request function in the receiver. OTA could not be "ON" all the time.

The result may be much slower channel changes as the FTM would have to stack the requested frequency (if not the current one) on a band. So the receiver would send out a frequency request signal, the FTM would get it, have to stack on the unused band on that line and the the receiver could access the channel.

I could see it working, but I wouldn't count on it.

[harsh]

I would guess that FTM is not going to support OTA directly. It may leave the door open for diplexing downstream of all of the switchgear, but if the HR20's OTA tuner setup is any indication, OTA will have to come into the receiver on its own wire.

[Radio Enginerd]

I would guess that FTM is not going to support OTA directly. It may leave the door open for diplexing downstream of all of the switchgear, but if the HR20's OTA tuner setup is any indication, OTA will have to come into the receiver on its own wire.

Which IMO would be awesome.

If FTM only allows you to stack both feeds coming from the Dish, then we would all still be in excellent shape considering that would free up a single RG6 run, dedicated for OTA.

[tfederov]

FTM will be my savior and allow me to go OTA on all of my TVs because I'm not Bob Villa and would tear the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks out of my house trying to run a third line.

[Earl Bonovich]

From what I have been told,
You should be able to diplex in OTA to the FTM stream.
However, some considerations have to take place if you are using a powered antenna.

[Meklos]

The way it works now (I think):

Receiver signals multiswitch regarding which LNB and polarity to 'tune' to. LNB takes the full spectrum of bandwidth (16 full transponders on a single polarity) and converts the entire block to a lower frequency, but still including all 16 transponders. Receiver tunes to appropriate center frequency of the transponder it is interested in, receives data, decodes and displays.



The way I hope FTM works:

Receiver signals device regarding which satellite and transponder to send. FTM device detects existing frequency ranges in use on the line, negotiates an agreeable center frequency with the receiver. FTM device downconverts *one* transponder to the appropriate center frequency on that line.

[Bad Rex]

If FTM only allows you to stack both feeds coming from the Dish, then we would all still be in excellent shape considering that would free up a single RG6 run, dedicated for OTA.

Only if you have two RG6 runs already. I have a secondary room with only one RG6 run, but since I'm diplexing OTA, I can still record on two tuners, just not SAT/SAT. With FTM, I could potentially do that, too, but if FTM is OTA-unfriendly, I would have to choose between SAT/SAT as my only recording option with FTM (and one RG-6 run) versus my current non-FTM setup.

[Radio Enginerd]

Only if you have two RG6 runs already. I have a secondary room with only one RG6 run, but since I'm diplexing OTA, I can still record on two tuners, just not SAT/SAT. With FTM, I could potentially do that, too, but if FTM is OTA-unfriendly, I would have to choose between SAT/SAT as my only recording option with FTM (and one RG-6 run) versus my current non-FTM setup.

Fair enough. I figured since this thread exists withing the HR-20 Q&A section of the board that we all had an HR-20 installed utilizing both tuners.

[Kapeman]

FTM will be my savior and allow me to go OTA on all of my TVs because I'm not Bob Villa and would tear the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks out of my house trying to run a third line.

LOL!

And ditto!

[Bad Rex]

Fair enough. I figured since this thread exists withing the HR-20 Q&A section of the board that we all had an HR-20 installed utilizing both tuners.

Plus you don't know what a strange person I am. ;) I actually have three RG6 runs to my HR20 so I'm good there. The room in question still has a HR10, which I would consider upgrading immediately if a good FTM solution became available.

[tfederov]

Earl has said that more information on FTM is coming in January.

More as in specs or prices or release dates?

[Earl Bonovich]

More as in specs or prices or release dates?

Hopefully all of the above.

[tfederov]

Thanks, Earl. I know you may be aware of stuff in advance, so without giving anything away, is the price something the average wife might use against her husband to go on an all day shopping spree to get even? If not, I could probably be first in line to get this. :D

[jcricket]

If you have three RG6 runs to all your receiver locations, you're fine. At your "head-end" location, you plug runs into the 4x8 satellite (e.g. Zinwell) multiswitch and then one run per location into a switch just for OTA (assuming they're all home-runned to somewhere). Like so:


Roof Antenna -> 1 cable -> OTA switch -> 1 cable to each receiver location
5 LNB Dish -> 4 cables -> Satellite Multiswitch -> 2 cables to each receiver location

Those of us with two runs that currently use a 5x8 switch at the head-end and a diplexer at the receiver end are the ones that are "hosed" without FTM. With FTM, all is good again:
Roof Antenna -> 1 cable -> OTA switch -> 1 cable to each receiver location
5 LNB Dish -> 4 cables -> FTM Satellite Switch -> 1 cable to each FTM receiver

Receivers like the HR20 (if I understand correctly) will split the single satellite run into two tuners for each internally, much like it does for the single OTA run now (internal OTA splitter). There may be some signal loss issues that you need to overcome with a powered multiswitches for OTA, but my guess is those aren't that expensive. I'm not going to the HR20 until FTM is available (and is cost effective) for the same reason others have listed[/b] There's a small chance, if all my Seattle locals are available via Satellite, that I would just ditch the OTA antenna and FTM wouldn't matter. Small chance.

Now, if you only have a single cable currently running from your multisitch to each receiver, you'd still have to do some kind of combining/diplexing between the head-end and receiver, but I'm guessing most people have two runs these days.

[Earl Bonovich]

Thanks, Earl. I know you may be aware of stuff in advance, so without giving anything away, is the price something the average wife might use against her husband to go on an all day shopping spree to get even? If not, I could probably be first in line to get this. :D

Not even close... One version is probably going to be less then two tanks of gas in my 2005 Nissan Quest.

[dervari]

So the way I understand it...with FTM I can feed both tuners of the HR20 with one cable?

[Earl Bonovich]

So the way I understand it...with FTM I can feed both tuners of the HR20 with one cable?

Yep

[texasbrit]

The ideal stacking system would be one where all the channels were in a single cable and you could just split it to multiple receivers, but given all the satellites/channels direcTV is trying to deliver there would simply not be enough bandwidth. But if you are only going to drive two tuners at a time down one cable(e.g. the two tuners in a DVR) it's a lot easier because as was pointed out in a post on a different forum you only need transmit two channels, or blocks of channels, in two different frequency bands, and then at the DVR just translate the frequencies back to where they would normally be expected by the two receivers. You are really diplexing the two sets of signals onto the same cable. This is I think the way that DishPro works. So for example the "hi-block" would be for tuner A and the "lo-block" for tuner B. Don't know if this is how the FTM will work, but it makes sense. In multiswitch terms, the FTM would look physically like a 6x1 multiswitch, although it's really a 6x2 with the two outputs on the same cable.
And this would also explain why the b-band converters are "dongles" rather than being built-in to the H20/HR20, because you wouldn't need them if you used the FTM.

All speculation, but interesting....

[texasbrit]

This makes interesting reading, for those who might like to know how the FTM system might work....
http://www.freshpatents.com/System-architecture-for-control-and-signal-distribution-on-coaxial-cable-dt20061005ptan20060225100.php?type=description

[Meklos]

If I'm reading this correctly, the FTM module (close to the dish) is the device actually receiving and partially decoding the signal in at least one of the implementations in the patent.

The really interesting one is the digital FTM. I've taken out the patent reference numbers...

"Rather than remap the signals onto an RF signal, the digital FTM solution uses a network interface which can use standard network protocols to communicate between the FTM and the IRD much like the interface between two computers in a network. Since the tuner, demodulator, and demultiplexer have separated out the majority of the unnecessary signals from the downlink signal, the signals from each chain can be placed sequentially or in an encoded fashion through network interface, and transmitted to each of the IRDs coupled to FTM. Controller acts as a local processor to control the network traffic. Operation of the system is similar to that of the system described in FIG. 4, however, each IRD in a digital FTM solution as shown in FIG. 4A no longer requires a tuner. The network interface is substantially repeated in each IRD, and the digital information is transcribed into video format much like video transcription on computer networks. "

If I'm reading this correctly, they have a solution where each IRD is now just a streaming data receiver, and the actual decoding is done by the FTM module. This looks like something you'd use in an MDU, where you have many many 'streams' of data possible.

Very interesting...

[carl6]

In another part of the document, it states that darned near any wiring could be used, various quality of coax, or non coax data wiring such as cat5 or cat6.

If coax is used, my guess is it will be ota friendly as far as frequency conflicts are concerned. However, there is a lot more to this than just bandwidth which could preclude diplexing.

Carl

[texasbrit]

Even in the analog case, the patent introduces the concept of "private channels', where each receiver requests a satellite/block of transponders as it does now, but the FTM sends out the signal in a piece of bandwidth just for that receiver - i.e . frequency shifted to a frequency block only that receiver looks at. As I said in a previous post, this is just a much more sophisticated form of the system used by Dish network. So a cable connecting to a dual-tuner DVR would carry two private channels. You can extend the concept to a larger number of tuners until you reach the maximum bandwidth of the single cable.

[marty45714]

The ideal stacking system would be one where all the channels were in a single cable and you could just split it to multiple receivers

Actually, why not dream big? The ideal stacking solution would be a media converter at the dish and a piece of single mode fiber running from the dish to the receivers. Let's see you run out of bandwidth now! :eek2: :lol:

[bpayne]

For anyone who cares, I've posted multiple times that OTA will play perfectly well with FTM.

I've also seen a working commercial version of FTM in person.


But go on speculating if you want- you guys are coming up with some interesting stuff. :)

[Earl Bonovich]

But go on speculating if you want- you guys are coming up with some interesting stuff. :)

:) It is sometimes my favorite part of being here...

[Herdfan]

Not even close... One version is probably going to be less then two tanks of gas in my 2005 Nissan Quest.
So less than $100 give or take.

Will the FTM work in conjunction with our current multiswitches or in place of? Will each receiver need its own FTM?

[monetnj]

I currently have three coax runs to 2 different HR10s (2 sat and 1 OTA). Sometime in the new year, I plan to switch over to up to 3 HR20s (I could see where I might replace my R15 to an HR20 with 1 coax run). Would it make any sense to convert over all three systems to FTM and diplex in OTA? If not, could I mix FTM for the third HR20 with 1 coax run with the other 2 that won't need FTM?

[bpayne]

So less than $100 give or take.

Will the FTM work in conjunction with our current multiswitches or in place of? Will each receiver need its own FTM?


Yes, Yes & sort of.



I currently have three coax runs to 2 different HR10s (2 sat and 1 OTA). Sometime in the new year, I plan to switch over to up to 3 HR20s (I could see where I might replace my R15 to an HR20 with 1 coax run). Would it make any sense to convert over all three systems to FTM and diplex in OTA? If not, could I mix FTM for the third HR20 with 1 coax run with the other 2 that won't need FTM?


No.

Wait- yes! I mean, no- I think?


You have to understand what the purpose of FTM is- initially, it's to make systems more simple and easier to install both from a customer perspective [infrastructure] and an installer perspective [less time spent wiring up mult. home runs and even drops]. Later FTM appears to enable some functionality that could be described as resembling a P2P network.

Now, if only there was some sort of "Server"... perhaps a "Home Media Server" of sorts that could take advantage of these features- then we'd really have a product on our hands!

[Earl Bonovich]

I currently have three coax runs to 2 different HR10s (2 sat and 1 OTA). Sometime in the new year, I plan to switch over to up to 3 HR20s (I could see where I might replace my R15 to an HR20 with 1 coax run). Would it make any sense to convert over all three systems to FTM and diplex in OTA? If not, could I mix FTM for the third HR20 with 1 coax run with the other 2 that won't need FTM?

With one version of the FTM converter, no.
With the other, Yes

I hope to be able to share all this FTM information soon with you all.

[Meklos]

Yes, Yes & sort of.






No.

Wait- yes! I mean, no- I think?


You have to understand what the purpose of FTM is- initially, it's to make systems more simple and easier to install both from a customer perspective [infrastructure] and an installer perspective [less time spent wiring up mult. home runs and even drops]. Later FTM appears to enable some functionality that could be described as resembling a P2P network.

Now, if only there was some sort of "Server"... perhaps a "Home Media Server" of sorts that could take advantage of these features- then we'd really have a product on our hands!

Well, I have no NDA information, but all I'll say is re-read this man's post, then go and look at the Feb 2006 slides again, then re-read the patent application.

There's something interesting in the brew, if I'm right.

[tfederov]

With one version of the FTM converter, no.
With the other, Yes

I hope to be able to share all this FTM information soon with you all.

Are you still looking at mid-January before you can share? Not trying to hold you to a date, just wanting to do some budgetary planning and see how far out I should wait before setting the money aside (gotta pay off those Christmas gifts!).

[sabex]

Not even close... One version is probably going to be less then two tanks of gas in my 2005 Nissan Quest.
Proof of the power of Google (and the depths of my inquiring mind):grin:
2005 Nissan quest = 20.1 gallon tank
So 2 tanks = 40.2 gallons
Average price of regular gas in Tinley Park Ill - $2.40
Therefore priced around $96.48

Thats definitely gonna be on my shopping list.
Earl, do you know anything about installation needs?
Would this be hooked up to the dish, the switch or the HR20?
Is there a Beta test list I can sign up for?

[Earl Bonovich]

Are you still looking at mid-January before you can share? Not trying to hold you to a date, just wanting to do some budgetary planning and see how far out I should wait before setting the money aside (gotta pay off those Christmas gifts!).

Hopefully... yes

[Earl Bonovich]

Proof of the power of Google (and the depths of my inquiring mind):grin:
2005 Nissan quest = 20.1 gallon tank
So 2 tanks = 40.2 gallons
Average price of regular gas in Tinley Park Ill - $2.40
Therefore priced around $96.48

Thats definitely gonna be on my shopping list.
Earl, do you know anything about installation needs?
Would this be hooked up to the dish, the switch or the HR20?
Is there a Beta test list I can sign up for?

Good hunting... :)

As to where it connects, all three.. :D

As for the Beta test... as far as I am aware, DirecTV still doesn't have a formal Beta test program.

[Tom Robertson]

Given the fraud and security features mentioned in the patents, I'm surprised Directv isn't forcing everyone to have one and making it free. :(

Merry Christmas,
Tom

[monetnj]

Ok, the replies to my query have confused me a bit, but it sounds like I might want to convert to FTM because of some interesting features this might enable down the line?Also, mixing FTM with non-FTM might not be possible with some FTM products anyway. Easy enough to disable some coax runs, although considering I ran them myself with a bit of blood, sweat, tears and cursing, it seems a shame! :grin:

[Herdfan]

Later FTM appears to enable some functionality that could be described as resembling a P2P network.

Now, if only there was some sort of "Server"... perhaps a "Home Media Server" of sorts that could take advantage of these features- then we'd really have a product on our hands!
Almost 2 years ago when D* showed the HMC at CES there was talk about a one wire solution for its 4 tuners and the clients being fed by a single coax rounted through a "special multiswitch." Looks like that "special multiswitch" is the FTM.

And speaking of CES, isn't it in mid-January? Hint, hint.

Speculation: I would guess the wait has more to do with a possible "Server" feature than the FTM.

[bpayne]

Ok, the replies to my query have confused me a bit, but it sounds like I might want to convert to FTM because of some interesting features this might enable down the line?Also, mixing FTM with non-FTM might not be possible with some FTM products anyway. Easy enough to disable some coax runs, although considering I ran them myself with a bit of blood, sweat, tears and cursing, it seems a shame! :grin:



Are you familiar with the DishPro architecture E* uses- Legacy vs. stacked DishPro and being able to use them within the same system together?


That's going to be us within a years' time.

[Reifel Tower]

... to run 8 lines to the eight tv's (they all currently have only one run)... or do I wait for this FTM thingy ma jig?

We had the house built and stupid me only ran one line to each location... "dammit bobby!"

I just like TV. Im no techno wiz kid... Will this be as simple as replacing the multiswitch and PRESTO I will have two lines to each receiver?

Or am I royally effed?

[tfederov]

Something else I'd be curious to find out is if I can mix my three HR10-250s with the FTM without causing all kinds of hate and discontent. If not, I'll upgrade to HR20s but I was kind of hoping to hold off until I had some more money set aside.

[Tom Robertson]

... to run 8 lines to the eight tv's (they all currently have only one run)... or do I wait for this FTM thingy ma jig?

We had the house built and stupid me only ran one line to each location... "dammit bobby!"

I just like TV. Im no techno wiz kid... Will this be as simple as replacing the multiswitch and PRESTO I will have two lines to each receiver?

Or am I royally effed?

You decorate with the same motif that I use: Modern American TV :) (But i'm down a few TVs, had some that did not survive our move to SLC :( )

Sounds like a matter of cost. If you can get directv to do it, go for it :) Or if you've got some buddies that can do it for a few cokes/pizza and chocolate, your gold.

Otherwise, you might want to wait.

Merry Christmas,
Tom

[Bill Milford]

Here is another link to the patent -- this one with image files of each page and it inludes the pictures:

http ://innovation.gbwatch.com/patent-application/20060225103.html

[Tom Robertson]

Here is another link to the patent -- this one with image files of each page and it inludes the pictures:

http ://innovation.gbwatch.com/patent-application/20060225103.html

Welcome to the forums, Bill! :welcome_s

And thanks!

Merry Christmas,
Tom

[sabex]

Here is another link to the patent -- this one with image files of each page and it inludes the pictures:

http ://innovation.gbwatch.com/patent-application/20060225103.html

There is an additional space after http in the link.
Try this: http://innovation.gbwatch.com/patent-application/20060225103.html

[Bill Milford]

There is an additional space after http in the link.
Try this: ...

Thanks for fixing the link. I just haven't posted enough to be able to post it correctly.