Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Issues (FCC interested in what?) I do want a wireless free broadband but I think how this is going to be implemented is a mistake... It should not have the possiblity of interfering with our television and from what I understand from the report it CAN cause issues in this department. So I vote NO and thats what the FCC should realize as well... if they are in the best interest of the public like they say.
At the same time the digital transition is not completely in the best interest of the public as well (coverage issues)... I think everyone feels that the FCC isnt doing its job...
Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere with taxpayers money that they get... of course that won't happen... 
EDIT cleanup |
|
| No, it won't interfere. Some of the companies doing the most complaining actually use the SAME type of wireless signal in other countries. Unless they're intentionally, continually, and knowingly interfering with the signals of other companies in those other countries the answer is this type of wireless signal will not interfere here any more than it does there. |
|
|
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to MalibuMaxx
said by MalibuMaxx:Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere Why can't the WIA members set up free, ad-supported WiMax? Answer me that one.
WSDs won't get used for (real) broadband, they'll just flood the market, despite having no internet towers anywhere, and wind up as long-range, high-penetration WiFi radios in the TV band. Hackers who care nothing about TV will set up personal, high-powered, high-gain links, bypassing any channel blocks, on it and wipe out everything, including each other. It will be the CB of the digital age. In the TV band!
Picking up DTV cleanly is tough enough already without additional foreign signals nearby. Anyone who's tried knows this. One of the local channels, WRAL-DT, recently dropped temporarily to a lower antenna on the side of their tower so they could change frequency on the main transmitter for the changeover. This reduced their signal in my direction by about 30db (estimated). Their tower is 10.2 miles away, and line of sight. I can literally SEE the lights on the tower at night from my front porch.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient channel space (!), the FCC saw fit to assign an adjacent channel at the same location. As long as both were at the same effective power it was fine, but with one 30db down from the adjacent frequency NONE of my equipment will receive WRAL-DT at all any more, with my rooftop antenna.
If WSDs are close enough and have enough effective power (input power X antenna gain) they will wipe out not only the channel they're on, but any adjacent channel as well.
So how much bandwidth does this leave WSDs to use in TV markets, the ONLY place the "free broadband" has even a chance of being deployed? Damn little.
This whole idea is even worse than BPL.
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to ualdayan
Most other countries use DVB-T rather than ATSC for digital television. There isn't enough room here to state why DVB-T withstands such interference better but suffice it to say it does. ATSC was chosen here because it is more energy efficient and it wasn't possible to broadcast HDTV over DVB-T back when ATSC was adopted although that is possible now with some limitations. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to MalibuMaxx
said by MalibuMaxx:At the same time the digital transition is not completely in the best interest of the public as well (coverage issues)... I think everyone feels that the FCC isnt doing its job... Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere with taxpayers money that they get... of course that won't happen... There is absolutely no way this will provide free or even inexpensive broadband in major market urban areas if the fixed base stations have to be on non-adjacent channels. Between additional digital translators to deal with those coverage issues as well as additional licensed low powers for the future ATSC mobile/handheld standard there will be very few UHF white spaces left in such areas and the WIA seems completely disinterested in the VHF frequencies. Did I mention the wireless telcos are willing to pay real money to license white spaces for backhaul. Don't forget those base stations will also need backhaul and that will probably only be available expensively from competitors. |
|
