TU Media launches first satellite TV service for cellphones

As usual it's the sort of thing that if we're lucky we might see over here within a few years (but probably won't), but a South Korean company called TU Media fired up the first satellite DMB (digital multimedia broadcasting) service for cellphones today, offering subscribers seven channels of video and 20 channels of audio for about $13 a month. So far the service is only compatible with two handsets—Samsung's SCH-B100 and Pantech's IBM-1000—but more are on the way. Our big question: how badly does watching satellite TV kill the battery on your phone?

[Via textually.org

[Okazaki @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

DMB is actually not satellite based at all, so the headline and the original article are a bit misleading.

DMB uses the same low-level protocol as DAB (the digital radio standard that noone seems to use anymore...), with video extensions on top.

[Peter Rojas @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

You are confusing satellite DMB with DMB-T, which is the terrestrial version of the service.

Read the article: "TU Media on Sunday started to beam the signal of satellite digital multimedia broadcasting (DMB) to cell phones for the first time in the world."

[DK @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

the samsung b100 is a satellite tv phone, so it makes sense that this would be a satellite service.

[ConceptVBS @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

There are 2 variations of DMB, terrestrial and satellite. The one TU Media is using is satellite based.

Just FYI, they have both type of service in South Korea.

[windi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

But really, who wants to watch TV on a phone?
I know I don't

[ConceptVBS @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Aparently, there is a market for them. It wouldn't be a wise investment spending millions on something people wont buy dont you think?

[ConceptVBS @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

BTW, people said the same thing about watching DVD's on PC monitors back in the days. Their logic: "Who would wanna watch movies on such a small screen?"

[yelohbird @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Question: if the phone receives TV signals from DMB satellites, then wouldn't it also be able to send/receive audio signals to/from the satellites, thus making it compatible as a satellite world phone?

[Sung @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

IMB-1000 is not a pantech's model. Pantech's DMB phone is not released. SK Teletech makes IMB-1000. Many phones are ready to accept DMB in South Korea.

[Hooty @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Receiving signals from a satellite is one thing and sending a signal to a satellite is another problem. You now need a huge transmitter and a battery to match it. Plus there's the usual latency that you find with any 2 way satellite communication. And of course there's the problem with the line of sight, since satellite signals don't penetrate anything.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

The guy with the comb over is funny.

[Bill Vedra @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

I want a control room like that in my apartment...

[Andrew @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

why would i want to listen to dave matthews band on my phone?

[taco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

actually, i've seen several of these in action and got to play around with one yesterday at the SK store...nice screen

it's actually not a bad idea. lots of koreans take the metro to and from work, so it's a good time saver/entertainer. (yes they get service underground on a train)

[taco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

ps. it was the imb 1000 and it didn't use that stupid looking antenna in the picture slashdot uses...

[justin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

its very convenience to people.
koreans student and salary man(worker) use dmb phone when they move to school or company, they watching news and educational program.
its already test to normal people.
and they can watching whole chanel just 13$ per month. but battery is not good at long time. i'll buy dmb phone. it costs may about 600$~ protain mp3, megapixel camera and so on.
its so cool.

[yuppicide @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

Just what I've always wanted.. to pay $13 a month just to see television on a 1.5 inch screen.

[Ron @ Dec 19th 2005 12:13AM]

[e-mail]