| Just another potential "pipe" What the NAB and its cohorts are saying is that because there exists the potential for interference in some places (especially interference with their members' profits), no one should be allowed to try it anywhere. All the FCC is saying is that it may be feasible to establish white space broadband in significantly large areas, certainly enough to take a closer look at the technology to do it. (Sorta like BPL, except you have some major players who want to pursue it, unlike the power companies, who mostly aren't interested at all.) Technology marches on. It would certainly make for a better emergency/lifeline network (a la EBS/EAS) than TV stations can offer. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
2 edits | said by mod_wastrel:What the NAB and its cohorts are saying is that because there exists the potential for interference in some places (especially interference with their members' profits), no one should be allowed to try it anywhere. Your statement is completely untrue because the broadcasters (including the NAB) have made it very clear they support fixed (perhaps nominally licensed) white space devices in rural areas. |
|
| The fact remains that the NAB et al are trying to exert influence, even control, over something they do not own to the detriment of those that do own it, namely, the public. The only thing they've ever made clear is that they don't want anything to go forward which could lead to a lessening of their profits. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
4 edits | said by mod_wastrel:The fact remains that the NAB et al are trying to exert influence, even control, over something they do not own to the detriment of those that do own it, namely, the public. No, the fact is it's the WIA (led by Microsoft, Google, etc.) that are trying to exert influence, even control to obtain something they do not own for free to the detriment of the public who will lose free TV if the WIA has their way. Some of the WSD proponents have even admitted that is their ultimate goal out loud! |
|
| If commercial broadcast (and "cable") TV disappeared from the face of the Earth, then I'd rejoice... hundreds (thousands?) of channels and nothing on. BTW, it ain't "free".
FCC says, "OK, it works... let's take a closer look."
NAB says, "Oh, NO!... don't do that!"
Sorry, I'm with the FCC (stranger things have happened, though not often) and the WIA (ditto) here. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | So you want to replace a broadcast system that has worked for years with a walled garden narrowcast system controlled by the likes of Microsoft. BTW Vista wouldn't be such a piece of crap if they hadn't thrown all the "trusted computing" junk in it in an attempt to lock up PCs and content. |
|
| When it comes to broadcast TV, I "want" nothing--I'm not a TV watcher (whether broadcast or not); and I couldn't care less about Vista (specifically or Microsoft in general). Technology advances. The broadcast system either adapts or it doesn't. I'm simply in favor of new technologies being explored and investigated. There has to be incentive, and that's what the FCC vote is about--giving incentive to those who want to explore new technologies (yes, for their own benefit, too). If the broadcast system wants to survive at all, then it's going to have to adapt. Of course, actually having something worth watching might help. "White spaces" won't kill broadcast TV, but the continued loss of viewers due to lack of content and over-commercialization certainly might. As it is now, broadcast TV is of no value at all to me. |
|
