| Links for more information... Since the ipdemocracy article gave no detail about the claim of the test being rigged, which makes it sound like sour grapes on google's part, here is a bit more information about google's complaints with the test.
»googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/···ces.html
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20038596
Specifically they claim microphone operators were themselves improperly transmitting on tv spectrum, in violation of fcc rules.
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are. And how do they know it didn't cause problems? Did they ask? Would the average person complain to the FCC if his digital TV was blocking or glitching for a few minutes during the day? Would they have any clue why it happened if they were even home to see it? That's the problem with digital vs. analog interference. With an analog TV signal, interference is obviously interference. With digital, it's indistinguishable from any other reception error.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
Yes, and the distance between neighboring houses is much smaller than the distance between a football stadium and any house.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
...
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
wireless microphones are used by the NFL, megachurches and many other organizations that use them without obtaining licenses. This large group of wireless mic users have been getting away with this because there weren't any problems. Now all of a sudden they are worried about white space devices causing them problems!
»www.publicknowledge.org/node/1665
Briefly, the vast majority of wireless microphone users have no right to use the broadcast white spaces. While the number of wireless microphone users may exceed 1 million, only 952 users have actually licensed systems. In theory, the FCC should be sending out SWAT teams and busting every Broadway theater, business conference center, and megachurch that filed in the white spaces proceeding and confessed to a federal felony. But the reality is more complicated, especially as most of these folks have no clue that they are spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on systems that make them “radio pirates” subject to confiscation of equipment and a fine of $11,000 per violation per day. |
|
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
Specifically they claim microphone operators were themselves improperly transmitting on tv spectrum, in violation of fcc rules.
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create.
And nowhere does Page or anyone else prove they won't cause interference. The FCC's test say they will. All that Page and the Coalition can say is that allow the new service and the problems will be worked out later.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | In all fairness BBR should attach a disclaimer to your avatar stating that you may have been an employee of and may still be plus you have a major financial interest in the bottom line of the Teleco's and you couldn't care less for the consumer or those of us who are tired of being overcharged for crappy service. You're an industry hack. There's nothing wrong with that except you attempt to come across as someone who is non biased but people who have been reading and participating here for years know the difference. Did it ever occur to you that we the consumer would like to have a third choice? I would dump TWC in a minute if this was available. |
|
|
|
MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by rit56:Did it ever occur to you that we the consumer would like to have a third choice? I would dump TWC in a minute if this was available. I can see I am going to have to keep harping on this every time this subject comes up. What makes you think WSDs will be a viable alternative to cable internet? The whole idea is ludicrous. It CANNOT and WILL NOT be, any more than EVDO or any other wireless broadband already is. There's not enough bandwidth. Best possible case, it would be a little cheaper but much more limited.
And for the record, I disagree with TKJunkMail more often than I agree with him, and I have no vested interest in either broadcasters, mic manufacturers, or the coalition, but he's right on this one.
The simple fact is the coalition wants in the digital wireless business on the cheap and are promising YOU things they cannot deliver to get what they want.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create. But that's it - it's not just "a couple of microphones". There are well over 100K unlicensed wireless microphones, operating as "white space" devices, albeit illegally. They serve as an Existence Proof that white space devices can be sucessfully deployed. If white space devices were going to cause a big problem, we'd be seeing some indication of it now. But the sky hasn't fallen, contrary to the dire predictions of the broadcasters (who don't want competition for eyeballs) and the wireless microphone vendors (who are used to having the white space all to themselves, on an illegal basis). |
|
 DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by PDXPLT:said by fAcEtIOUs:I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create. But that's it - it's not just "a couple of microphones". There are well over 100K unlicensed wireless microphones, operating as "white space" devices, albeit illegally. They serve as an Existence Proof that white space devices can be sucessfully deployed. Wireless microphones are very low power (ca. 10 > 100 milliWatts)on very narrow bands. The White Space Devices proposed use much more power (250 mW or more) and they produce a wideband envelope. When wireless mics are "slotted" into existing occupied TV channels, they use intercarrier spaces and do not interfere. Analog FM and wideband digital are apples and oranges. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to MrMoody
said by MrMoody: That's the problem with digital vs. analog interference. With an analog TV signal, interference is obviously interference. With digital, it's indistinguishable from any other reception error. Huh? |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create. ... what part of
While the number of wireless microphone users may exceed 1 million...
did you not understand? The one million part? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
"nowhere does Page or anyone else prove they won't cause interference. The FCC's test say they will."
At this point I don't think these devices are even transmitting, they are being tested for how effectively they are able to detect signals from microphones etc.
Their record appears to be less than perfect on this, but not as horrible as opponents claim. Whether the technology should have to be perfect before it is allowed to be developed commercially should be another discussion because I don't think that is the standard that is typically used.
At any rate this is quite a distance from saying that these devices will interfere and an even further distance from saying that they will bring enormous chaos. |
|
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by fAcEtIOUs:I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create. ... what part of While the number of wireless microphone users may exceed 1 million...did you not understand? The one million part? The part where the source of that number backs it up with zero facts. I don't believe it at all.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by
At this point I don't think these devices are even transmitting, they are being tested for how effectively they are able to detect signals from microphones etc.
Their record appears to be less than perfect on this, but not as horrible as opponents claim. Whether the technology should have to be perfect before it is allowed to be developed commercially should be another discussion because I don't think that is the standard that is typically used.
At any rate this is quite a distance from saying that these devices will interfere and an even further distance from saying that they will bring enormous chaos.
[/BQUOTE :
The problem is largely that a rooftop antenna can receive a perfect DTV picture from a channel that a little stub antenna on the WSD cannot detect from some kid's bedroom. The kid's WSD will start transmitting on that channel and could easily wipe out the rooftop antenna's picture. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by DavePR: The problem is largely that a rooftop antenna can receive a perfect DTV picture from a channel that a little stub antenna on the WSD cannot detect from some kid's bedroom. The kid's WSD will start transmitting on that channel and could easily wipe out the rooftop antenna's picture. Bingo, licensed fixed white space devices can have large enough antennas properly polarized but cheap unlicensed portable devices won't have adequate antennas to always detect TV signals. Where they will be used (in close proximity to people watching TV) will also be very different than the non-residential venues where wireless microphones are typically used. |
|
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | Thus the issue I have with "White-Space" devices. I'm at 76 miles from the DTV transmitters with a Channel Master 3020 VHF/UHF/FM antenna, that is elevated 60' above ground level. I have 2-edge reception with a Channel Master pre-amp. I don't get nearly the DTV channels I do analog and I'm waiting for Feb 2009 to hopefully get better results.
This "White-Space" issue could be the nail in the coffin of OTA for me.
--
Personal Theme Song:
RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows.
Rush Radio Website |
|
