Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Here's the problem
What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features?
Their attitude will be something like:
"The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC)
"Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna)
"The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand)
"I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)
etc etc
So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC. |
|
Kett2000
Kett2000
join:2002-04-23
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Sueing the FCC on behalf of us?
NAB sued the FCC "on behalf of the millions of American households who rely on broadcast television for entertainment, news and information."
I never asked NAB to kill White Space Broadband.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
AfterhoursDJs House. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | On MY behalf?!
NAB, take my name off the list of people who you're doing this on behalf of.
Thanks in advance.
Also rot in hell. |
|
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
 ·Bresnan Online
1 edit | They're trying to kill it ASAP
"entertainment, news, and information."
..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? This is the main reason they probably want to kill it. They want it to look bad *BEFORE* all Americans find out what it is and what benefits it would have.
Just make sure it's done *CORRECTLY* and there should be no problems whatsoever. Same with any frequency.
I really don't see what the huge problem is. It's not like BPL issue, which they're still trying to revive (even though it creates a HUGE amount of interference).
It's just a ton of BS in my opinion.
Also, I'm not one of the "millions" that are against it. Take my name off your pathetic list.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo] |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to Eat Me
Re: Here's the problem
said by Eat Me  :What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features? Their attitude will be something like: "The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC) "Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna) "The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand) "I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?) etc etc So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC. So because someone may use a device illegally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Simba7
Re: They're trying to kill it ASAP
I would like to have WSB, they just have to do it correctly.
So, +1.
And if they don't get my name of their list I will sue them! |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
1 edit | reply to BF69
Re: Here's the problem
said by BF69 :So because someone may use a device ilelgally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned. No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many.
My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas.
White space devices are like BPL. They may sound like a good idea, but in reality they are going to cause much more problems than they solve. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights. By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to Kett2000
Re: Sueing the FCC on behalf of us?
So do you really need white space devices for broadband? How are current WISPs doing it? |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to Bit
Re: Here's the problem
said by Bit :You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights. By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year. In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution. The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.
But I do have to ask, how do you propose the FCC is going to handle enforcement if this gets out of hand?
At least with illegally modified vehicles the cops can pull them over. With illegally modded white space devices, it will be not as easy, plus the FCC has shown that it is not interested in any serious effort at enforcement. It will be like the wild west with everyone stepping all over each other and no one giving a shit. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to james
Re: On MY behalf?!
Do you depend on broadcast TV received from an antenna for entertainment? |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to me1212
Re: They're trying to kill it ASAP
Sure. They have to make the devices 100% unmodifiable and they have to be conservative about determining what is a white space and what is not. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Eat Me
Re: Here's the problem
said by Eat Me :No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many. MILLIONS of people abuse alcohol and drive. Thus using your logic ban cars.
My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas. This has been proven not to be a factor. I live in a fringe area. I'm thinking about ditching cable for OTA. I'm not concerned on bit, but thanks for yours. I'm 100% for this. No one ask you to speak for me.
White space devices are like BPL. They may sound like a good idea, but in reality they are going to cause much more problems than they solve. It's NOTHING like BPL which by the way could have been futher along except a group of whiny little ham bitches that think it's 1929. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
2 edits | reply to Eat Me
Please...this isn't about interference. This is about an industry lobby not wanting new competitors. The reason they're bitching about this is the same reason they spent millions lobbying against the satellite radio merger.
They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks. They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.
Meanwhile I live and work in densely populated areas and don't suffer in the slightest from so-called sewer-like "spectrum" pollution with my 900MHz, 2.4GHz or 5GHz devices. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution. The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important. which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know? |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :It's NOTHING like BPL which by the way could have been futher along except a group of whiny little ham bitches that think it's 1929. 'nuff said. Based on this statement you clearly have no clue about interference, what causes it, what levels are acceptable and how it's resolved. From the looks of it you can't tell an electron from an M and M.  |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC. Do you work for NAB or just misinformed?
--
5 fingers + a thumb...... |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by Eat Me :In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution. The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important. which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know? Sure I do. And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective.
Furthermore, a signal of -114dbm while usable for me with a high gain antenna (which would bring it up above -114dbm) would basically give the green light to a white space device to fire up and pollute away.
I'm sure just like cell phone jammers someone will just make a WSD jammer (it's not that hard) to emit a signal just long enough to render WSD devices in the area ineffective.
This is yet another reason to say NO to WSD's, because they can be shut off very easily.
Finally, testing of these devices was conducted in a very slipshod manner with the FCC again just relying on a half assed test to make a decision. Not surprising when the agency is packed with lawyers and lobbyists who have no clue about RF in the real world. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to rawwhide
said by rawwhide :said by Eat Me :So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC. Do you work for NAB or just misinformed? What's your qualifications to call me misinformed again? |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Simba7
Re: They're trying to kill it ASAP
said by Simba7 :"entertainment, news, and information." ..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? Not to everyone, and not for free. |
|
