MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
 ·Comcast
|  You have got to be kidding me... right?
Wow well if they didn't want to ruin OTA T.V. if it passes they will shoot it down somehow. They really want to kill OTA broadcasts don't they?
This is insanity with a passion. Digital T.V. OTA broadcasts are so touchy already. Once again Wi-max is our ticket to any kind of public broadband system not a spectrum already in use. |
|
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs:
1 edit | i have no problems with digital OTA tv
i did have to go through a few antennas but once i had the right antenna its flawless. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to MalibuMaxx
said by MalibuMaxx  :Wow well if they didn't want to ruin OTA T.V. if it passes they will shoot it down somehow. They really want to kill OTA broadcasts don't they? This is insanity with a passion. Digital T.V. OTA broadcasts are so touchy already. Once again Wi-max is our ticket to any kind of public broadband system not a spectrum already in use. Yeah right. Wi-max might reach areas where some of my friends live in about 2025. And they only live a few miles outside of town. |
|
jameswade
join:2001-12-09
Hot Springs, NC
 ·US Cellular
·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Given a choice between Internet access and Over the Air TV?
I live in a rural area with no DSL, no cable, only 21 Kbps dialup (if that).
I get my Internet access via cell site by putting up a large yagi on the roof, pointing it the wrong direction to get a bounce off a nearby mountain, and run it through a three watt amplifier. And then it doesn't work that well, costs $60 per month and is capped at five GB.
I get the local TV channels via DirecTV - I can't get analog or digital TV channels here.
So, given a choice I'll take the white spaces!
I'm not at all convinced that using the empty channels will in any way harm DTV reception. At any rate 6 Mhz "guard bands" is a colossal waste of spectrum, especially for commercial interests and such generally poor programming. |
|
anjorusso
@nychhc.org
| white space for all
all those dummies who think it will interfere with TV transmission...guesss what?!! you can watch TV over the internet...so who careS?!! internet is definitely more important than TV anyway...majority of the people who were addicted to TV are now addicted to internet....and anyway...it's so much more than just surfing porn or using it for voip...it's about remote education, emergency communication and new internet applications that our minds have not been able to fathom yet...so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please |
|
anon12
@charter.com
| said by anjorusso :
all those dummies who think it will interfere with TV transmission...guesss what?!! you can watch TV over the internet...so who careS?!! internet is definitely more important than TV anyway...majority of the people who were addicted to TV are now addicted to internet....and anyway...it's so much more than just surfing porn or using it for voip...it's about remote education, emergency communication and new internet applications that our minds have not been able to fathom yet...so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please
yea if they want tv then pay for it like most Americans do already.that is if interferes with ota programming in which i don't think it will anyway |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to bender
Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?
said by bender :i have no problems with digital OTA tv i did have to go through a few antennas but once i had the right antenna its flawless. Me neither but once a neighbor purchases one of these whitespace devices and it malfunctions, you can kiss OTA goodbye.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to BF69
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think Microsoft and Google are going to spend huge money building WSD towers everywhere, especially in the middle of nowhere. News flash: they aren't. NONE of you clamoring for this because you don't have broadband will EVER see a WSD tower in range. WiMAX WILL spread, it just won't happen this week.
The WIA, despite what they're saying to get approval, has NO interest in providing rural internet. They want to provide lucrative PORTABLE service in CITIES.
Name any specific rural spot you're interested to see get broadband. I'll bet you $100 right now WiMax or a wired service reaches it before WSD broadband does.
Now give specs of what you would consider minimum broadband internet including speed, cap and acceptable content/protocol restrictions. I'll bet you another $100 no WSD tower that's been in operation more than a month will be able to reliably meet that spec. Payout 1 year after the first tower provides internet.
My personal TV is safe from WSD internet because there's cable and DSL broadband available here and I'm not on a through road to have mobile devices going by all the time.
But that only holds until they start selling WSD WAPs and people discover the range they can get with them.
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison |
|
MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
·Comcast
| I pay... but what about Grandpa....
Its not the issue of weather or not I pay for cable or not... I do... or did you not see my Comcast Cable review. I have a DTV and I have boxes for all my T.V.'s. However it is a PROVEN fact that the drop off on Digital OTA is much greater than analog. End of story.
I have the Second biggest outdoor T.V. antenna Radio Shack makes as well as it being amplified (30 db gain i think...). I can't wait for repeaters to come down in price and widely available so I can swap to one of those instead of my amp. However, I still recieve breakup of my H.D. channels from OTA digital. btw im only 100 ish miles away from the broadcast towers... if that.
It doesnt matter to me I have cable too. I do think OTA is clearer when it comes in but a channel I could get in on analog flawless (Cheannel 7 Chicago) I can only get it only so well.
I feel sorry for those who dont have the infrastructure in place like I do (i.e. older folks) That dont understand whats going on when they dont have a picture in feb. Also now the fact that they are even remotely thinking of implementing these white space devices that could interfere with OTA picture... why not just get rid of OTA to begin with... if its such an interferance to the FCC.
These devices that are going to make whitespace broadband are only going to give urban areas internet anyway... not rural because of the backhaul it would need. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to MrMoody
Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?
said by MrMoody :The WIA, despite what they're saying to get approval, has NO interest in providing rural internet. They want to provide lucrative PORTABLE service in CITIES. Absolutely, in fact fixed nominally licensed rural white space devices could have been approved before this without opposition from broadcasters if they hadn't been linked to unlicensed mobile devices designed for use in congested urban areas. The worst part is the white space devices can't possibly work successfully in some of the most RF congested urban areas (fewest white spaces available and greatest demand) unless broadcast television as we know it disappears. Why doesn't the WIA ever bother to count the licensed Class A and low power TV stations? |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04
·DSL EXTREME
| Free TV is coming back
In big cities you can get dozens of digital TV streams free for the taking; all you need is an antenna and a DTV receiver. People are dropping cable and satellite and going back to the antenna. The pictures and sound are better and you don't have to pay anybody.
These White Space Devices are a threat to over-the-air TV because they assume the TV receivers have laboratory grade receivers, when if fact the receivers are very cheaply made. If the FCC wasn't a total tool of big business they might have anticipated the need for minimum receiver performance standards. Once again "deregulation" ruins life for many while increasing the profit margins of a very few. |
|
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·Vonage
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
·Mediacom
| reply to n2jtx
Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?
said by n2jtx Me neither but once a neighbor purchases one of these whitespace devices and it malfunctions, you can kiss OTA goodbye.
[/BQUOTE :really? why is that? i thought that Digital OTA was in different spectrum than analog OTA. |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Sorry but
The White space devices would interfere with Analog OTA NOT Digital OTA
differant frequencies
the bands that analog OTA used were sold off already (I think 1 more set might still not be sold yet)
sure it'll mess with Analog OTA but isn't even related to D OTA |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
2 edits | White Space Devices are designed to operate on channels 21-36, 38-51 and are related to OTA digital reception. They will definitely not work on channels 52-69 that were auctioned off because beginning Feb. 18th those can no longer be white spaces. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to anjorusso
Re: white space for all
said by anjorusso :
so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please
Judging by your attitude it would be wrong for me and other unlicensed mobile WSD opponents to shut up or to paraphrase Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." |
|
Gtom
@ius.edu
| Internet is more important than TV
Remind me why we still need broadcast TV?
Broadcast TV only allows for.... TV. That's it. And only a few companies can participate.
Internet allows for:
TV
Movies
Radio
Websites
Commerce
Education
Research
Communication (including VoIP)
Software (Google Docs, Evernote)
Plus all those other things we have yet to discover.
Everyone can participate.
When it comes to the benefits to humanity, the internet wins! |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to bender
Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?
said by bender :really? why is that? i thought that Digital OTA was in different spectrum than analog OTA. Nope. They were assigned new channels in the traditional analog TV bands. Many are in UHF 52-69 which was recently auctioned off to other services. As of Feb, they will have to move down to lower channels and drop their analog transmission. Some (not all) will move the digital signal to where their analog was. Others are going to some other unoccupied channel between 5 and 51 (mostly near the top of that range).
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to Gtom
Re: Internet is more important than TV
said by Gtom :
Remind me why we still need broadcast TV?
Broadcast TV only allows for.... TV. That's it. And only a few companies can participate.
Internet allows for:
PRON
Everyone can participate.
When it comes to the benefits to humanity, the internet wins!
sarcasm off |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to DavePR
Re: Free TV is coming back
I live in an apartment smack dab in the middle of the downtown core of Montreal. I get a grand total of one analog English station (CTV) with decent quality (and only one or two French) out of the three major networks.
There is only one English digital channel in Montreal (CBC), but I get zero reception on any of the digital channels in any language.
This despite the fact that the greater Montreal area has a population of 3.6 million people.
If the broadcasters aren't going to bother building decent transmitters in decent locations, then they can get the hell out of the way and make room for wireless broadband technology. The only reason I get CTV is because their broadcast power is SEVERAL TIMES higher than any other station. But even they don't bother with digital.
It doesn't look like digital television is going to go anywhere for years, and the analog situation shows no sign of improvement.
What I'd like, in the future (although it'll never happen), is for all telecommunication services (be it radio, television, telephone, everything) to go over the net, and the entire (and I do mean entire) wireless spectrum to be devoted to a set of non-interfering networks run over high-power UWB (which uses far less power than a cellphone to get multi-kilometer ranges). Instead of buying chunks of the spectrum, companies would buy percentage of overall bandwidth via the timeshare; when you've got a pervasive network with excellent penetration and many gigabits of bandwidth, so many problems go away.
It's a pipedream, but it'd solve so many problems. Content or service providers could provision any sort of service to any customer. They could either directly buy bandwidth (and by this I mean a percentage of time) from the government, or take a cheaper solution and just go over the public net and let people get service through one of the mobile broadband providers that would crop up.
This is all probably incredibly unrealistic, but the possibilities of just making everything UWB and completely ignoring any possible interference issues would be amazing. Heck, UWB could even do so much more than it does now with minimal interference if the telecommunication regulatory bodies weren't so damned paranoid.
</offtopic_rant> |
|
spitwater
@direcpc.com | well
if its low latency, stays connected most of the time, 500-1000kbps then ill take it.
must be cheaper to install in rural areas then dsl (which is the dumbest technology anyway) |
|
