Skeedatl
To Provoke and Annoy
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Add affirmative action to the bidding
The large companies got their cut, time to reserve space for smaller competitors. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| Agreed.
I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
 ·Comcast
edit:
March 28th, @10:22AM
| said by ieolus  :I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them. It will be the unlicensed users that would be created by this groups advocacy that would cause the interference.
Google & the others makes a big deal about how spectrum sensing devices can allow all these devices to interact harmoniously in an unlicensed band of frequencies while not causing harm to nearby licensed frequencies. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China.
If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| That makes no sense in the light of WiFi equipment which is all in unlicensed spectrum.
But since WiFi doesn't directly threaten incumbunt broadband revenues, they don't interfere.
I guarantee if we saw a real third alternative to dsl/cable emerge in this unlicensed spectrum, we will see plenty of dirty tricks.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
Skeedatl
To Provoke and Annoy
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to ieolus
I'm saying, let them license it, but set restrictions as to who can bid. For example, the bidder has to have less than X% market share. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :.. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China... you've said this before, so I'll say what I did before - there are these things called "standards". 802.11 seems to be working out OK.
For this to succeed, they have to set good standards that prevent interference. So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process, we'll see if they succeed or not. |
|
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
Blacklick, OH
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by ieolus :I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them. It will be the unlicensed users that would be created by this groups advocacy that would cause the interference. Google & the others makes a big deal about how spectrum sensing devices can allow all these devices to interact harmoniously in an unlicensed band of frequencies while not causing harm to nearby licensed frequencies. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China. If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns. Your inner shill is showing again. It's quite obvious the carriers want the spectrum licensed and auctioned so they can buy up it all up and sit on it in order to keep competitors out of the market. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
edit:
March 28th, @11:46AM
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :you've said this before, so I'll say what I did before - there are these things called "standards". 802.11 seems to be working out OK. For this to succeed, they have to set good standards that prevent interference. So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process, we'll see if they succeed or not. The standards have already been reduced before the first device has even been successfully tested. The television spectrum is too crowded for these things to ever work everywhere if the FCC actually against the wishes of the White Space Coalition ever approved the standards that assured they didn't interfere. If they were really interested in standards these devices would be restricted to the low VHF channels for the first ten years. The dirty little secret is that they hope everyone moves to cable or satellite and free TV dies. |
|
MrMoody
Sittin downtown in a railway station
join:2002-09-03
Clayton, NC
 ·Embarq
| said by Sammer :The dirty little secret is that they hope everyone moves to cable or satellite and free TV dies. Yes, it would be to Cable's (and satellite/FiOS/UVerse's) advantage if the new, competing free digital TV service didn't work so well. After all, that's how they built their business way back when, competing with crappy over-the-air analog signals.
And all the communication companies would LOVE to see all that gigantic, medium range VHF & UHF bandwidth relicensed to subscription services whether they are TV, phone, net or whatever.
Right now, thanks to some effort in putting up and aiming antennas, I have free digital TV with NO stream errors. I'm certain that will change if other devices using the band become common.
And no I don't work for a broadcaster, I'm just enjoying not having to pay the monopolistic, customer-hating cable company.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
edit:
March 28th, @02:23PM
| Sarcasm turned on! - Why don't we restrict each of the 210 TV markets to a maximum of twenty stations each. Limit them to maximum of 1 Kw on the seven high VHF channels and 50 Kw on 28 UHF channels. That will leave plenty of room for the unlicensed devices and the other 14 channels can be auctioned off for billions. - Sarcasm turned off! |
|
RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to ieolus
It makes perfect sense. WiFi is confined to a tiny part of two bands where propagation is limited. There is intense interference between devices when more than about three or four try to occupy the same airspace (like in a large apartment or condo building). Which then leads to basically illegal modifications and power boosting to get past the interference a la CB radio. The WiFi devices are also confined to share space with other Part 15 devices.
The UHF TV band is entirely different.
As a practical matter, even if permitted, you'll never see any deployment in those "under-served" areas. There is no money it it or they would already be 'served'.
There is already a real third alternative to dsl/cable in unlicensed spectrum. They are called WISPs. See if you can find one and next time check your facts before posting.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process Not nearly as much as uninformed pro-white-space Internet "experts" have done to spread utterly false information.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
