hugheshostag
join:2008-01-14
Suffolk, VA | Hurry up
Get this going fast so everybody can say bye bye to Hughes Net |
|
Southernman
@direcpc.com
|  I wish I could buy you a cup of coffee, so we could discuss the uselessness of hughes, at least for the money that we spend on it each month. Microsoft being involved though may not be a good sign....  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  2 Strikes; 3 Strikes and they're out
That is 2 strikes against the companies that want to use the white spaces between TV channels. 1 more strike and they may not get another chance. |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley | That colition isn't the only player in the device market for this spectrum. Motorola and others have devices that have faired better in the testing I think. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Scary
It sounds like interesting technology but the fact that a malfunctioning unit can wreak havoc should make this technology a non-starter. After all, even if they get a working model, who is going to guarantee with 100% certainty that none of the devices will malfunction in the hands of the public and not wipe out terrestrial TV in the geographic area around the bad device? Even a failure rate of .01% on a million-plus units is still one hundred units that could cause problems. This technology has to work flawlessly every time all the time or it will be a problem.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL | Power and heat problems?
The device must be based on the Xbox 360. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to n2jtx
Re: Scary
Not just scary but having cheap unlicensed mobile devices like this share broadcast spectrum is a bad idea in the first place because there will be malfunctioning devices. Some of the devices will undoubtedly make it across international borders causing even more problems. If this was really about providing rural broadband then we would be talking about fixed location devices using white spaces in areas where there is no possibility of interference. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| Fearmongering, what a quaint strategy.
The real reason is the studios are afraid that people will be able to use the devices to access their premium content like ... NASCAR Total Access where they charge 10 bucks a month or whatever to be able to get different viewing angles and access to the in car cameras. And lots of SPAM.
So basically they want the spectrum, and anyone else who wants to utilize it is unwelcome competition.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon |
|
Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
| said by gaforces  :Fearmongering, what a quaint strategy. The real reason is the studios are afraid that people will be able to use the devices to access their premium content like ... NASCAR Total Access where they charge 10 bucks a month or whatever to be able to get different viewing angles and access to the in car cameras. And lots of SPAM. So basically they want the spectrum, and anyone else who wants to utilize it is unwelcome competition. I believe that the reason the NAB is against use of whitespace is because broadcasters have millions of dollars invested in wireless equipment (cameras, communication systems, microphones, etc) that already use this spectrum. The wireless mics I currently have operate on this spectrum and would probably be subject to interference. If they're useless, it would cost me about $3000 to replace them. That's just 6 mics... |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | reply to n2jtx
said by n2jtx :It sounds like interesting technology but the fact that a malfunctioning unit can wreak havoc should make this technology a non-starter. After all, even if they get a working model, who is going to guarantee with 100% certainty that none of the devices will malfunction in the hands of the public and not wipe out terrestrial TV in the geographic area around the bad device? Even a failure rate of .01% on a million-plus units is still one hundred units that could cause problems. This technology has to work flawlessly every time all the time or it will be a problem. Bull S*it! HDTV spectrum is so poorly allotted that on the average, 25% of it is vacant ("white space"). Even in NYC, the most spectrum congested place in the entire world, the amount of white space is almost 20% As an example, there are ONLY 29 HDTV stations on channels 5 and six in the entire United States! Compare this to about 200 NTSC ones there now and you can see that vast areas of the USA will have channels 5 and 6 wide open after 2/2009! As an example, there is no HD channel six loocated in all of California!
Why shouldn't this be used by us? After all, it's OUR freaking spectrum, NOT the NAB's!
The NAB is a lobbying group, headed by a former beer distributor. Their $$ comes from Broadcast TV stations. Is there any doubt who they are going to advocate for (hint: it ain't us!)?
Let me clue you into something. It's EASY to make a device that looks for a carrier on frequency before it transmits. EVERY el cheapo ten dollar wifi router doers this already. Even older, there have been devices that hunt for carriers and automatically stop when they find them. They're called scanners and they've been out about 40 years! This technology is NOT new, it's SO OLD that it's almost an antique!
A malfuncitioning electrical device can KILL someone. In fact they do-many people every year die due to electrocution. Using your logic, we should ban the use of electricity!
(Disclaimer: I am a TV/Radio Engineer with over 30 years of experience) |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| said by qworster : HDTV spectrum is so poorly allotted that on the average, 25% of it is vacant ("white space"). Even in NYC, the most spectrum congested place in the entire world, the amount of white space is almost 20% As an example, there are ONLY 29 HDTV stations on channels 5 and six in the entire United States! Compare this to about 200 NTSC ones there now and you can see that vast areas of the USA will have channels 5 and 6 wide open after 2/2009! You're right that it's poorly allotted but that's because there shouldn't be any digital television stations on 5 and 6. Also channels 14 through 20 are shared (with public safety) spectrum in places like NYC and channel 37 is reserved for non-TV use. If these devices were only for use on channels 5 and 6 there wouldn't be many complaints from broadcasters about them but good luck getting through the noise. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| This is just hysterical nonsense.
The idea that devices have to prove that they are 100% fail proof before development can continue is nonsense. Lots of devices can cause interference and devices often fail. Point of sale terminals in stores can go bad and start interfering. In fact it has happened in the past where emergency frequencies have tracked down problems to malfunctioning terminals. We don't go off on a crusade to eradicate all devices. Lots of devices cause local interference problems. That is as common as dirt. Just because we don't hear endless hysterical ranting about the end of the world doesn't mean that it isn't happening everywhere as we sit here and post.
This latest failure wasn't even a failure in the question that the device was submitted to study, namely interference potential. It was an unrelated hardware failure in powering the device. Saying that any failure proves that the device shouldn't continue development is a standard that would bring capitalism to a dead stop.
This is simply an asinine standard that, if followed, would end all technological development and would require all present devices, from automobiles to microwaves to clock radios, to have to be removed from the market.
Of course this product isn't ready for "prime time". It's a prototype. It isn't a finished product being released tomorrow to the market. It was intended to test for interference issues. Complaining that it isn't functioning perfectly is as stupid as complaining that an 1900 automobile doesn't run as well as a 2008 honda civic hybrid.
You have to start somewhere people. Technology evolves and is refined. It doesn't just fall out of the sky one day in its perfect and final form. NO technology has EVER met the absurd criteria that opponents are trying to establish. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to gaforces
Re: Scary
Do you have anything to back that up?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | reply to Sammer
you can apply that to ANY radio transmitter, not just the 'white space' devices. i don't see how that point is valid in this context. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to Thespis
i highly doubt your microphones operate in that same spectrum as these 'white space' devices would mainly based on the fact that they could never get certification from the fcc to operate in the already used TV bands. my guess it that your microphones operate in an ISM band. plus the the white space devices should be aware that some small range of frequencies is being used and should not transmit in that range. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | reply to qworster
i agree, there is a lot of empty space in the spectrum, especially the TV spectrum. as far as i know, the HDTV signal is fairly robust to interference, expect for the pilot carrier. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to qworster
Good god. You are a TV/Radio Engineer and are that clueless as to the basic physics of the technology you are using? You should know at least the basics of channel allocation, and by now should know how silly it is to continue broadcasting TV of any kind on low-VHF. Or high-VHF for that matter. ATSC TV works just fine in the UHF band and any sane broadcaster is going to implement ATSC television up there due to the smaller antenna space requirements if nothing else. Give 54-88 MHz to land mobile uses and 174-216 MHz to wireless Internet on a primary basis, but your understanding of how this all works is shockingly weak.
By the way, if it so easy to design a properly functioning "white space" device, why are they having such a hard time getting it right? I suppose the NAB is sabotaging the designs? 
I've been in this business for 33 years. Some of what I do is tracking down interference to broadcast signals. I guess I should embrace this new "white space" initiative as my early retirement fund, because the way it's proposed right now I'll have more work than I can handle.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: 2 Strikes; 3 Strikes and they're out
said by TKJunkMail :That is 2 strikes against the companies that want to use the white spaces between TV channels. 1 more strike and they may not get another chance. How does a power failure (ie The equivalent of unplugging the device) equate to it failing to detect other broadcasts and avoiding their frequencies? The article states that the device's power source overheated and shut itself down until it cooled off (at which point it resumed working [ie: Its Circuit breaker reset]). While it was functioning [ie: Was powered up] it worked 100%. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | reply to cornelius785
Re: Scary
Wireless microphones are licensed as Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the TV bands. See 47 CFR 74.801-882.
Operating term here: Licensed.
Link to rules for your reference.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX
| reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785 :i highly doubt your microphones operate in that same spectrum as these 'white space' devices would mainly based on the fact that they could never get certification from the fcc to operate in the already used TV bands. my guess it that your microphones operate in an ISM band. plus the the white space devices should be aware that some small range of frequencies is being used and should not transmit in that range. I highly doubt you have any idea what you're talking about... |
|
