Re: Links for more information... in

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21172038 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:36:10 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21168090 TKJunkMail :

said by nasadude

said by TKJunkMail

:

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21168090 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:49:58 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21168056 anon : "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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21168056 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:44:52 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167995 nasadude :

said by TKJunkMail

:

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167995 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:34:57 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167640 jester121 :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167640 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:45:36 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167274 DavePR :

said by PDXPLT

said by TKJunkMail

:

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.

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167274 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:46:45 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167069 PDXPLT :

said by TKJunkMail

:

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21167069 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:09:59 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166947 MrMoody :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166947 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:53:13 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166864 rit56 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166864 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:36:25 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166643 TKJunkMail :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166643 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:58:09 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166486 nasadude :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166486 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:31:05 EDT Re: Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166437 MrMoody :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166437 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:22:28 EDT Links for more information... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166209 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21166209 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:38:17 EDT