OUTSIDE THE BOX: Northpoint Speaks

silversurfer

silversurfer

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
1,147
1
Las Vegas, Nevada
From our friends at SkyReport.com

By Sophia Collier

Imagine a set-top box that could provide a full complement of video channels, including all local stations in any market, pay-per-view programming, interactive games, plus high-speed wireless Internet access. Imagine a wireless transmission system behind this set-top box that can be easily upgraded in capacity in less than a day through a simple add-in card at a local cell tower. Imagine this video service being offered to consumers throughout every market in the country for about $39 a month.

This system is Northpoint Technology. It could be carrying DBS signals but given the DBS companies' current stance it probably won't be. For many years the two DBS giants have fought Northpoint at the FCC, in Congress and in the press. We believe their opposition to Northpoint will place them on the wrong side of history. By opposing rather than embracing Northpoint as a complementary technology, the two DBS giants have committed themselves to a high cost, limited capacity infrastructure that can provide only an imperfect replacement to cable.

Lack of capacity is a significant competitive weakness for DBS that will only get much worse as HDTV and other rich media content become more prevalent. By rejecting Northpoint's many overtures to cooperate and closing themselves off to innovative terrestrial reuse of spectrum, the DBS giants squandered the opportunity to maximize their capacity, and, as a result, digital cable now threatens the growth of satellite TV.

At the dawn of the DBS industry in the early '90s, Northpoint inventors Carmen and Saleem Tawil, two communications engineers in Austin, Texas, had the terrific idea to solve the local signal problem by transmitting terrestrially in the same spectrum used by DBS. The Tawils worked out the geometry and power levels needed to operate without interference and were awarded six patents for the innovations.

In 1999 Northpoint applied to the FCC for operating licenses at the same time as seven satellite applicants that sought to operate non-geostationary satellite systems over the same frequencies. In 2000 Congress passed the ORBIT Act that exempts international and global satellite systems from licensing through competitive bidding. In 2001 the FCC determined that all parties could share the same spectrum and announced it would grant the satellite licenses while dismissing Northpoint's applications. Northpoint believes that it should be licensed in the same manner as the satellite companies.

Readers of these pages are no doubt aware that the satellite industry has been given virtually all of the spectrum it uses free of charge. The FCC has only held a total of four satellite auctions in its entire history. The last one was held almost seven years ago. Since that time the FCC has awarded over 150 satellite licenses without auctions, including dozens of licenses for domestic services. The fact that the FCC has not charged the satellite industry a high, up front "auction tax" is a crucial factor in the satellite industry's success. Hughes Electronics is the largest spectrum holder in the United States and it has never participated in a single auction. SES Americom is the second largest spectrum holder and, again, it has never participated in an auction.

Northpoint has not suggested that the FCC reclaim the satellite licenses so they can be sold to the highest bidder or even today hold DBS auctions. In fact, Northpoint invented a technology that allows it to share the spectrum used by satellites so that no displacement is necessary to accommodate new users. Northpoint simply seeks the same licensing terms that have been so successful for the satellite industry.

Of course, we are hardly surprised that industry incumbents would lobby Congress and the FCC to support an auction so as to delay and burden a new competitor. But this opposition is shortsighted. We believe a much more productive course for the DBS industry would be to embrace our technology and use it as an enabling platform to create a true, high capacity, low cost competitor to cable. DBS was first envisioned as a true alternative to the cable monopoly; yet, without the capacity needed for Internet and localized rich media applications it will never attain its full promise. Northpoint is the technology that can make this vision a reality.

Sophia Collier is chair of Northpoint Technology, Ltd., and Broadwave USA.

(Please note, the opinions expressed in this column are that of the author and not of SkyREPORT. To e-mail the editor: editor@skyreport.com.)
 
Mark Sorensen

Mark Sorensen

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 8, 2003
35
0
It was interesting reading.

I’d like to hear more of the debate (without hyperbole)…

I sincerely hope that they follow this item up with a writing from a person truly knowledgeable of the situation on the DBS side of the isle. Perhaps a rebuttal of points where appropriate, and hopefully to give an opinion as to what the real-world interference impacts might be upon DBS users by the proposed Northpoint Service. This subject is conspicuously missing from Ms Collier's writing, and is (along with ‘competition’) a major concern of the DBS operators.
 
silversurfer

silversurfer

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
1,147
1
Las Vegas, Nevada
I would like to see a neutral party do a study on the potential interference. This technology has real promise IF it does not interfere with DBS....
 
Mark Sorensen

Mark Sorensen

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 8, 2003
35
0
A neutral 3rd party DID do an analysis back in 2000-2001.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/mitrereport/mitrereport_4_01.pdf

Which the SBCA (Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association) says “confirms harmful interference to DBS operations from Northpoint Technology”

Unfortunately, it is 208 pages long. Sure to put the most insomniac of insomniacs fast to sleep :) …. But there are so many variables, so many assumptions made about a variety of factors, plus the fact that in reality every single instance of a DBS installation could have very unique performance issues due to unique physical characteristics of each site, and the relationships to the DBS satellites and Northpoint transmitters.

Even the 7 page “summary” is a doosy…. http://www.sbca.com/Exec%20summary%20from%20MITRE.pdf

I’ve worked with RF for a few decades… there are some situations that I have a pretty good feel for what will and will not be problematic… this one does not look too good to me – but I don’t know… There definitely IS an “increase in unavailability” to DBS users (as they call it in the study), but what exactly that means to the average ‘Joe Sixpack’ is not crystal clear to me. Though, I think I get the idea, and said it here: http://www.satelliteguys.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678
.
 
Stargazer

Stargazer

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
16,565
340
Western WV
If such a technology would not cause harmful interference with DBS frequencies, then DirecTv and Dish Network themselves would want to use this technology.

Also Dish Network may be releasing broadband internet by satellite with free equipment for $39 a month.
 
Mark Sorensen

Mark Sorensen

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 8, 2003
35
0
If such a technology would not cause harmful interference with DBS frequencies, then DirecTv and Dish Network themselves would want to use this technology.
Perhaps. But their licences are for DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite). Not a terrestrial service. That frequency band was set aside as 'DBS ONLY' with 9 degree wide satellite spacing to avoid interference issues, and facilitate small dish sizes (larger dish size does produce a better signal to noise ratio, therefore offers better noise/interference immunity).... So, the first part of the game is to create that terrestrial usage allotment where none existed before.

If DirecTV or DISH would have attempted such move (creation of the terrestrial usage)- at that moment in time, they would open up pandora's box. Because it is logical to assume that such a service allotment would be open for application, or up for auction to others. Logical that is, unless you are Northpoint who wants (desperately) to be anoited with the keys to that kingdom for free. And you have the polital connections to make it happen.

But, if it does go out to auction or open application, It would not surprise me in the slightest to see DirecTV or DISH compete for it. That is, if the FCC allows them to participate in what could be a competing video delivery service.

Also Dish Network may be releasing broadband internet by satellite with free equipment for $39 a month.

I believe that at Team Summit in Atlanta earlier this year, Charlie said "2-years"... that could put a roll out in early 2005. Though I'm sure that if anyone can push the time-line up, it is Charlie Ergen.

I believe that is among the primary slated uses for the Ka band capacity on EchoStar 9: http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/aboutus/satellites/echo9/index.shtml
assuming that there are no problems with the satellite, and it is performing as they hoped, they I could certainly see it happening ahead of that 2005 date.
.
 

Similar threads

silversurfer
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mark Sorensen
Mark Sorensen
silversurfer
Replies
0
Views
1K
silversurfer
silversurfer
silversurfer
Replies
3
Views
2K
Stargazer
Stargazer
silversurfer
Replies
1
Views
1K
silversurfer
silversurfer
Top