GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
clubs:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·VOIPo
·Vonage
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to DotMac4
Re: NAtB are a bunch of BS artists
I'm hurt! 
I love folks like you. You don't want to hear the truth unless it's your version.
Then when challenged with real facts, you respond by doing childish acts.
It's like a three year old. NANANANAH!! I can't hear you!
Enjoy your ignorance. I'm sure it's bliss-filled! |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to GeekJedi
No thanks. I don't need a dose of NAtB propaganda.
Enjoy ignore. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to GeekJedi
"t's a solution that is searching for a problem."
I don't see how anyone looking at the state of the american market could make a claim like this with anything approximating a straight face. Something like 96-98% of the broadband market is controlled by either the sole cableco or sole telco in any particular market(yes there are multiple bells and cable companies but they do not compete with one another).
For example see figure 9:
»www.freepress.net/docs/broadband_report.pdf
This data is a few years old but all the newer data I have seen shows no fundamental change. Note also the trend, which is to even less competition and growing market share for cable and the bells.
A large number of people have only one option and a quite significant number of people still have zero options.
This country desperately needs an additional player with national scope. A few scattered startups with very limited service areas are never going to be serious competition to the cableco/bell duopoly.
Now there may be legitimate concerns about interference and those concerns should be addressed but it is in the nature of these things that every time changes occur entrenched interests scream that the sky is falling. These melodramatic pronouncements about everyones' televisions being under attack are stupid. It isn't as if interference or failed devices only became a possibility yesterday. Devices have failed and interference has occurred from the very beginning of wireless communications and it has not yet led to the downfall of civilization. I think one has to be suspicious of groups whose agenda is to kill something like this, early in its life, rather than working to make sure it functions properly and with minimal nuisance to others. If we continue to listen to these groups that tell us the sky is falling the practical effect will be locking us perpetually into the limitations of present technology or, at minimum, locking us into whatever technology the dominant players choose to allow us. |
|
GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
clubs:
·CenturyLink
·VOIPo
·Vonage
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to DotMac4
Thanks for the intelligent discourse. It's always helpful to respond with profanity-laced tirades that are long on conjecture, and short on fact.
Well done.
Now...a dose of truth:
Back in the early days of radio, people wanted more choices in radio. There were many more people wanting to create stations than were frequencies. So the FCC allowed "directional" AM stations, where you could direct the signal in certain areas, allowing one to shoehorn in a signal.
In hindsight, how did directional AM's work out for everyone? The AM band is a crowded wasteland. It's sort of the same kind of thing here...except this time, instead of having engineers and the FCC making sure those directional patterns hold and no interference is caused, we are to trust that the equipment is smart enough to work out any issues on its own.
Just like CB radio, GMRS, etc...once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't get it back in. Let's say this stuff causes wide-spread interference. Is the FCC going to go to the public and say "Oops! We made a mistake. Turn off your devices!"? Of course not.
The point is that once the technology is released, there is no impetus to keep anyone honest.
There are some many better ways to do what they want. Let's do something that really works.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!! |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
4 edits | reply to GeekJedi
I don't give a crap about your opinion of "NAtB" and the name describes them perfectly.
The NAtB doesn't represent ALL broadcasters, only some loud mouth terrestrial broadcasters and as such the NAtB can kiss my ass.
They don't give two craps about consumers, resort to bribing politicians to get their way like the RIAA racketeers and thus their opinions should be ignored by everyone.
F*ck the lying sacks of crap at the NAtB, their shills and all other special interest outfits who act like they're helping Joe Consumer when instead they're just looking to protect their power and influence over gov't and the marketplace. |
|
GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
clubs:
·CenturyLink
·VOIPo
·Vonage
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DotMac4
First of all, you lose points for the "NAtB" thing. Not very mature.
At any rate, the prototype is broken. It caused problems. What happens when units in the field break?
Full disclosure here: I'm a broadcast engineer. I have a vested interest in all of this. I also am able to look at this from a technical standpoint, as opposed to an emotional one.
From a technical standpoint, this is a very bad idea. It's a solution that is searching for a problem. What the NAB is doing is standing up and waiving a flag. Look for several technical organizations to do the same thing very soon.
Believe what you will about the NAB but if you take a mature look at the situation, it is fraught with potential issues and future ramifications.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!! |
|
