Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| If the NAB is fighting it... If the NAB is fighting it, be assured it's a good deal for the consumer.
They are SO pro incumbent broadcaster that it's sickening.
They bend over for TV broadcasters, while throwing their own radio mambers under the bus!
They SUCK! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
1 edit | Because it isn't doable without interference.
The magnitude of what the device would have to do makes it doing it impossible.
The footprint of a television signal, especially in the fringe reception areas, areas that viewers need because they are under served, makes reliable detection of these weak signals impossible by the white space devices.
Why doesn't the FCC just to the right thing, the thing that makes good engineering sense, and allocate some frequencies just for wireless? |
|
| do you have proof that it isn't doable without interference? a link to the website with strong connections to NAB doesn't cut it. the whole damn point of the white space devices is to use the parts of the spectrum that aren't in use and never interfere with the TV signals. and btw, from what i've heard, the ATSC is fairly robust against interference, unless the pilot carrier is messed with. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Obviously you didn't even read the complaint which is from the networks, the Association of Public Television Stations, and others. Some of the white space proponents have made it very clear that they consider this just a first step and what they are really after is all of channels 21-36, 38-51. In fact there won't be enough white spaces in some congested urban areas for this to work unless some television stations disappear. |
|
