 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
1 edit | They're trying to kill it ASAP "entertainment, news, and information."
..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? This is the main reason they probably want to kill it. They want it to look bad *BEFORE* all Americans find out what it is and what benefits it would have.
Just make sure it's done *CORRECTLY* and there should be no problems whatsoever. Same with any frequency.
I really don't see what the huge problem is. It's not like BPL issue, which they're still trying to revive (even though it creates a HUGE amount of interference).
It's just a ton of BS in my opinion.
Also, I'm not one of the "millions" that are against it. Take my name off your pathetic list.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo] |
|
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I would like to have WSB, they just have to do it correctly.
So, +1.
And if they don't get my name of their list I will sue them! |
|
| Sure. They have to make the devices 100% unmodifiable and they have to be conservative about determining what is a white space and what is not. |
|
 DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Simba7
said by Simba7:"entertainment, news, and information." ..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? Not to everyone, and not for free. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to fifty nine
I'd like to test the people in this thread for their knowledge of this subject. I suspect that besides you and me they'd all fail.
I don't think I've ever seen so many straw men propped up in a discussion outside of the political forums. It's both funny and scary.
The FCC should just limit these to a subset of the UHF frequencies. Let 'em fight with the land mobile folks in 14-20. That would be interesting... |
|
1 edit | Not a chance in NYC. The NYPD and FDNY is on 14.
But that would be interesting though. WSDs interfering with the NYPD/FDNY. But I don't think that would be an issue as they are typically blow torches. |
|
| reply to Simba7
said by Simba7:"entertainment, news, and information." ..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? This is the main reason they probably want to kill it. They want it to look bad *BEFORE* all Americans find out what it is and what benefits it would have. Just make sure it's done *CORRECTLY* and there should be no problems whatsoever. Same with any frequency. I really don't see what the huge problem is. It's not like BPL issue, which they're still trying to revive (even though it creates a HUGE amount of interference). Actually it's a lot like BPL, except with BPL there wasn't a commercial for-profit interest willing to step up and sue. The difference between this and BPL is the interference mitigation process with BPL was manual and slow (over weeks and months), with whitespace it supposedly should be automatic. But the issues with having a device automatically determine what frequencies are not being used when the potential interference victims have significantly different receiving characteristics aren't trivial. At least with whitespace the service is using the spectrum for communications. With BPL it was signal leakage wrecking the spectrum, in essence spectral pollution.
It's a bit of a stretch that NAB is trying to kill this because the Internet is competition for broadcasting, as I think you're implying. The Internet horse escaped from the barn long ago, and most every broadcast station worth its salt has a website with video clips and often realtime video, and the Internet has enabled interactive experiences for their viewers. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to fifty nine
Oh, there wouldn't be much chance of these interfering with the land mobile folks (as you noted...those systems are, as we in broadcast say, "big sticks") but they'd get to demonstrate their much-hyped ability to find and use open frequencies. The dirty little secret is that in the areas where most of them would be used there are no white spaces. I ran through their "frequency finder" tool the other day and it found precisely two channels with any chance of working, and missed six high-powered users on "usable" which would blow the WSD off the air.
The re-allocation of the TV band has packed stations together and it's only going to get tighter. |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to rf_engineer
said by rf_engineer:said by Simba7:"entertainment, news, and information." ..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? This is the main reason they probably want to kill it. They want it to look bad *BEFORE* all Americans find out what it is and what benefits it would have. Just make sure it's done *CORRECTLY* and there should be no problems whatsoever. Same with any frequency. I really don't see what the huge problem is. It's not like BPL issue, which they're still trying to revive (even though it creates a HUGE amount of interference). Actually it's a lot like BPL, except with BPL there wasn't a commercial for-profit interest willing to step up and sue. The difference between this and BPL is the interference mitigation process with BPL was manual and slow (over weeks and months), with whitespace it supposedly should be automatic. But the issues with having a device automatically determine what frequencies are not being used when the potential interference victims have significantly different receiving characteristics aren't trivial. At least with whitespace the service is using the spectrum for communications. With BPL it was signal leakage wrecking the spectrum, in essence spectral pollution. It's a bit of a stretch that NAB is trying to kill this because the Internet is competition for broadcasting, as I think you're implying. The Internet horse escaped from the barn long ago, and most every broadcast station worth its salt has a website with video clips and often realtime video, and the Internet has enabled interactive experiences for their viewers. ACTUALLY, it's NOTHING like BPL-where fairly low frequencies and powerlines (VERY efficent antennas at these frequencies) cause interference to happen MANY MILES AWAY!
How can you compare BPL to a 30 miliwatt device operating at 500 mHz? There IS no comparison! You show your bias and/or ignorance in this post you have made. |
|
| said by qworster:said by rf_engineer:said by Simba7:"entertainment, news, and information." ..and the internet *DOESN'T* provide this? This is the main reason they probably want to kill it. They want it to look bad *BEFORE* all Americans find out what it is and what benefits it would have. Just make sure it's done *CORRECTLY* and there should be no problems whatsoever. Same with any frequency. I really don't see what the huge problem is. It's not like BPL issue, which they're still trying to revive (even though it creates a HUGE amount of interference). Actually it's a lot like BPL, except with BPL there wasn't a commercial for-profit interest willing to step up and sue. The difference between this and BPL is the interference mitigation process with BPL was manual and slow (over weeks and months), with whitespace it supposedly should be automatic. But the issues with having a device automatically determine what frequencies are not being used when the potential interference victims have significantly different receiving characteristics aren't trivial. At least with whitespace the service is using the spectrum for communications. With BPL it was signal leakage wrecking the spectrum, in essence spectral pollution. It's a bit of a stretch that NAB is trying to kill this because the Internet is competition for broadcasting, as I think you're implying. The Internet horse escaped from the barn long ago, and most every broadcast station worth its salt has a website with video clips and often realtime video, and the Internet has enabled interactive experiences for their viewers. ACTUALLY, it's NOTHING like BPL-where fairly low frequencies and powerlines (VERY efficent antennas at these frequencies) cause interference to happen MANY MILES AWAY! How can you compare BPL to a 30 miliwatt device operating at 500 mHz? There IS no comparison! You show your bias and/or ignorance in this post you have made. You show your ignorance when you base your comparison on one criterion. From a regulatory standpoint they're quite alike. They're both essentially unlicensed devices that can interfere with licensed services due to technical incompatibilities. In both cases the interference victims have difficulty identifying the interferer and the means to stop the interference is cumbersome. Whitespace uses cognitive channel usage detection and it was also proposed for BPL. Both had technical reports (Whitespace report was from the FCC and the BPL report was from NTIA) that weren't too good, but both had rosy cover sheets. Both have a problem of what do you do when there's millions of these devices in the wild and we realize there's a inherent problem with the way it was designed. Both had marketing campaigns and FCC political support. They both provide broadband and both seem to have mindless fans who lack any technical knowledge of either. How's that for similarities?
What are the differences? Frequencies and power used, BPL doesn't use the spectrum it merely pollutes it, and the FCC has set some criteria for how the cognitive inactive channel detection works for Whitespace.
Peel back the veneer and they are much alike. In general both point to a trend I see coming at the FCC. If it's not auctionable spectrum and it's not public safety, make the service an unlicensed best-interferer-wins free-for-all. It may surprise you that I don't necessarily oppose whitespace, I oppose the FCC's methodologies and it bothers me when people villianize the NAB over this. They do have valid concerns and not everything broadband is good and wholesome. |
|
