Let's first come to your most important point, comparing with Teradek and Paralinx products which are not officialy released yet. I am very sorry, it is not my intention to discredit other products. I just tried to name differences. In that case (coming to reconnect times, stability and range) we just named principle differences comparing the nature of compressed with uncompressed technlogy by taking the facts which you offer from your announcement of the Bolt 2000. (i come to that matter later again) We know these problems from 8 years of experience Rebotnix and its partners has made in wireless transmission.
5GHZ is interesting cause of its worldwide license free use, but it is terrbile when not having line of sight. That's why most COFDM / DVBT systems are working at another frequency while costing more than 40k
We are going to change this. In the first demovideo (shown above) it was a simple 5GHZ line-of-sight demo, but even there it is cuting edge. It's also not the frequency that counts here, it's the scheme how we adjust the RF-Path in a 3 Mimo system in combination with the feedback and control of the encoder module.
It is in the nature of the 5GHZ band to need line of sight. Additionaly we worked out a way to use different frequcies which work better through obstacles while saving the ability to multicast on tablets/computers at the same time. (Demovideo coming soon)
I think all this is going far beyond what users (like me) usualy need to understand.
In the end it is all just about real world performance and what the user for his specific situation is demanding.
To be clear, we are not saying that the RB-2 is the better Bolt 2000 or something. Both systems (compressed/uncompressed) are unique and have their advantages and disadvantages.
That's where we come to:
1. This device is using compression, right? What H.264 profile is it using (High, Main, or Baseline)? Compression means there will always be more latency than from something like the Bolt or anything from Paralinx and others. Also, is the video 4:2:2 like the Bolt or is it 4:2:0 which is more like our Cube product?
The RB-2 is using h.264 @ base or main profile. H.264 is not H.264, especially the motion vector that we developed to detect the motion in a single (one pass) encoding is essential to ensure that the compression looks outstanding. Rebotnix has years of experience in professional streaming technology, that's where are coming in the advanced technologies. The encoding profile base or main is useless if you dont have the right motion vector with an perfect frame lookhead.
We put massive CPU and DSP power in the RB-2. As colorsampling we also use 4:2:2 which makes this device unique, because many people are demanding it. (in my personal opinion 4:2:0 would completely sufficient, but that's a whole other story )
At the RB-2 we have 40ms encoding latency, which is nothing compared to other existing products. We need that low latency for getting a lot of more range to adjust the buffer and compression rate on the fly and in realtime without having a framedrop. -that's impossible with uncompressed transmission
Our RB-1, which is another device, optimized for UAV, has a latency of just 10ms. We know that there is no other h.264 encoder which is able to do it. -and we are aware of legal limitations. That's why the RB-1 does not go over 25mW of output power, because this is not allowed within the EU airspace, while achiving 1500 feet of range. This is another advantage of compressed technology. (low output power + high range)
You are absolutely right that latency is higher than uncompressed technology, but uncompressed often is not meaning 1:1 (like you would pull a SDI cable), as we figured out. We saw a lot of quality decreasing from different manufacturers chipsets (that promised to be uncompressed) when increasing the range.
It is all about what you need.
We learned when it is coming to long range application, it's not the best way to 'overload' the airspace with gigabit by gigabit, because then you are loosing a lot of flexibility to react on changing circumstances. It's much more useful to keep the bandwidth low. and this does not necesarily means that you are loosing quality, these days there are a lot of clever ways to get the best out of both worlds.
The only real noticeable difference is the latency as you have said. Again, this is just about what you need for your specific application. When you need a very long range while having maximum stability and quality (eg for broadcasting) and you can live with a delay of aproximately 1 frame (at 25fps) then compressed is the way to go. And when we talk about compression, we mean the top end of compression where you just barely can notice it.
2. "Low latency" over satellite or LTE means around 2 seconds or more. This isn't due to the product per se, but the network you're trying to broadcast over.
I did not state that the RB-2 will have 40ms latency via satelite. 40ms is just the RB-2 latency. Of course a satelite link will add latency.
Regarding satelite uplink in gerneral:
When you want to live-stream in a crowded space (like a concert or something else) the cless of the mobile provider are complletely full. Here we can offer a great sat-upload link interface for our RB-2, including a very in-expensive rebotnix satelite service in a two way channel, so you dont need terestric internet. We are working on this with eutelsat. This service is currently working in europe (for the upload) and from europe to USA and asia we offer Amazon service or Level(3).com streaming.
That's another handy advantage of compressed technology like we are utilizing in the RB-2. It is very versatile and going far beyond simple camera to receiver monitoring.
4. Using and selling patch antennas in some countries might not be legal. Is this device and its antennas certified by the FCC?
Yes. We have found partner in the industry to creat exclusive antenna components for us. All of our radios have an FCC ID of course.
Lastly, am I correct stating this is just like a $2000 Teradek Cube, except with higher powered antennas and modulation on 700/900mhz? It appears to have the exact same functionality and similar latency.
Not realy. That both products are utilizing the same principle (compression) does not mean that it are similar products. We are sure that the RB-2 is going far beyond the cube when it comes to quality, latency, link stability and versatility. (that's why it is more expensive of course. We won't deny that)
But let's do not go deeper in the comparision as i am sure both products have there specific purpose at their price-range.
I am sorry that this post is exceeding the usual amount of info a little bit. Again, i just tried to compare compressed with uncompressed technology. I would like to delete any reference to other companies unreleased products in the post above, as u were right to complain about this. Unfortunately i cant edit the post anymore.