Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
2 edits | Should be treated like LPTV
Rural broadband providers using television spectrum should be licensed similarly to LPTV because except for the use of transceiver devices it's really much the same and it would be fairest to everyone. If the government thinks unlicensed devices are such a great idea how about using them in the 225-400 MHz spectrum that is largely controlled by the government. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by Sammer  :Rural broadband providers using television spectrum should be licensed similarly to LPTV because except for the use of transceiver devices it's really much the same and it would be fairest to everyone. For so-called "access" white-space devices, that certainly woould be a fair and equitable way. The way the FCC defines these, they are WISP-type devices, alhough they are currently proposing them to be unlicesensed.. IEEE is even working on a standard for them, 802.22. Although the broadcasters and the wireless microphone makers (both legal and illegal) are working in that group, seemingly to delay the standard as much as they can.
I believe what's being discussed here is lower-power wi-fi-like "personal/portable" devices, designed for short-range LAN communications. What would be "fairest to everyone" is if they were treated by the FCC the same as the hundreds of thousands of low-power unlicensed devices already in the TV band; namely, the legal ones (TV remote controls) and the illegal ones (unlicensed wireless microphones). Despite what the NAB says, these have been operating for many years in "white space", and the sky hasn't fallen. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | No the sky won't fall, over the air viewers will just periodically lose reception of one or more channels. This will seem virtually inexplicable because most channels will continue to be received perfectly. |
|
