dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to MrMoody

Re: support from scofflaws?

said by MrMoody:

said by nasadude:

of course the people using wireless mics don't pose a threat to NAB's business like widespread, affordable broadband would.
How does broadband compete with the NAB members' FREE, AD-SUPPORTED service?
If you don't think that the Internet competes with broadcast TV for time and attention, then you're starting the game hopelessly lost.

said by MrMoody:

They are genuinely concerned with interference and loss of spectrum, and with good reason.
?

said by MrMoody:

As far as widespread, affordable broadband goes, this will only be it if you define broadband as wireless dialup. At best it will be a much larger area version of an open WiFi point on a university campus. It will have thousands of users crowded onto a few dozen Mb of available bandwidth. At worst, it will be another overcrowded WiFi with more range (bad), with everyone using it to try to create private links to their office, their buddy's house, etc.
At worst. At best it works great!

said by MrMoody:

And if the cheap devices don't interfere right out of the box (likely), hackers will see to it that they do by using high-gain antennas, boosting power and forcing operation on interfering channels.
I can't say this won't happen sometimes, but by and large people will buy a cheap device and it will either work or not work. Only a teenie-tiny portion have the knowledge or desire to spend significant time and effort on it.

said by MrMoody:

WiMAX is far better, capable of serving broadband to all users and can serve the same purpose WSDs supposedly will.
This is not a choice between WiMAX and WSD.

said by MrMoody:

WSDs have too much likelihood of causing unsolvable problems; we CANNOT allow them.
Sure we can. We allowed cordless phones, and they generally worked. They even worked in several different modes. They even worked even though hackers could modify them.

You're spreading worry.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...


MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
said by funchords:

If you don't think that the Internet competes with broadcast TV for time and attention, then you're starting the game hopelessly lost.
You can't seriously think that a new wireless internet is going to take many eyes away from broadcast that aren't already on the internet some other way.
At worst. At best it works great!
There's no way it CAN "work great," it's physically impossible. It's a poorly thought out model being rammed through by companies who think they can make a killing with wide-area hotspots (maybe) and PAY portable wireless service (definitely). It doesn't have enough bandwidth available to serve the area it would cover with any reasonable broadband.
I can't say this won't happen sometimes, but by and large people will buy a cheap device and it will either work or not work. Only a teenie-tiny portion have the knowledge or desire to spend significant time and effort on it.
It only takes 1 guy in the right spot to cause a problem for someone else, a problem they shouldn't by all rights have to have, and with DTV won't even likely suspect the source of his trouble.

How many cantennas do you think are out there being used to steal WiFi? And they had to build that antenna, with WSD they will be able to walk into Radio Shack and buy a $40 yagi. It also only takes 1 hacker to hack the firmware and release it, then every pirate wannabe on the internet has it with NO effort.
This is not a choice between WiMAX and WSD.
Says you. They both will provide the same service (or so the WIA claims: this is a lie of course), but WiMAX can do it much better without destroying free TV.
Sure we can. We allowed cordless phones, and they generally worked. They even worked in several different modes. They even worked even though hackers could modify them.
Cordless phones are much harder to hack than a computer network device (hardware vs soft/firmware), they aren't operating in the TV bands and there's not much incentive for anyone to boost the signal. Apples to oranges. WiFi already runs in some of the cordless phone bands. WiFi is hacked routinely. Luckily (or rather due to existing rules putting them where they are in the spectrum), they don't cause problems with other services, only each other.
--
"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