<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22008778</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:36:34 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:36:34 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22021899</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/853568"><b>rf_engineer</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>NAtB propaganda<br><br>      <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>"NAB supports new technology and ending the digital divide," Wharton said. "What we can't support is a multibillion-dollar spectrum giveaway to Google and Microsoft that threatens interference-free television."<hr></blockquote><br><br>What they really mean is...<br><br>      <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>"NAB supports new technology and ending the digital divide," Wharton said. "What we can't support is a multibillion-dollar spectrum giveaway to Google and Microsoft that threatens <b>THE INSANE PROFITS OF</b> BROADCAST television."<hr></blockquote><br> </div>Where are these insane profits and how does Internet access threaten them?  Do areas that have high speed Internet right now have reduced broadcast television profits?  <br><br>It may be fun to bash the big bad corporate interest, but I don't see the logic of it.  Microsoft and Google could create a rival multimedia service today without whitespace spectrum and compete with broadcast television.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22021899</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:06:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22019863</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1388405"><b>elwoodblues</b></A> : I disagree. Stern has brought a lot of subs to Sirius, but I rather enjoy the music channels.<br><br>Do I listen to Stern? Yes, but he is getting increasingly boring, with the sameo sameo every bloody day.<br><br>He killed nearly 90 minutes one show yapping about Joaquin Phoenix's appearance on letterman.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22019863</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:40:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014961</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : 900MHz cordless interference issues are of the analog variety.  Your claim of DECT buying is pure conjecture.  I just picked up a DECT phone not because it was DECT but because it was the cheapest cordless at Best Buy.<br><br>Even devices as powerful as microwave ovens have trouble taking down 2.4GHz gear...someone conceivably modifying a not-yet-invented white space device to increase the power 25% isn't gonna do shit just as it doesn't do anything in 2.4GHz.<br><br>Your claims of 2.4GHz "sewage" are based on the sheer number of devices (which is why you picked the NYC example) and their popularity, not because people are illegally modifying them.  We can only hope that white space services are so popular that we see a huge market develop around it.<br><br>NAtB propaganda<br><br>     <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>"NAB supports new technology and ending the digital divide," Wharton said. "What we can't support is a multibillion-dollar spectrum giveaway to Google and Microsoft that threatens interference-free television."<hr></blockquote><br><br>What they really mean is...<br><br>     <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>"NAB supports new technology and ending the digital divide," Wharton said. "What we can't support is a multibillion-dollar spectrum giveaway to Google and Microsoft that threatens <b>THE INSANE PROFITS OF</b> BROADCAST television."<hr></blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014961</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:36:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014765</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : Try using a 900MHz or 2.4GHz cordless phone in a densely populated area like NYC.  When I lived there I couldn't.  This is why a lot of people are buying DECT phones, because all of the WiFi trash is clogging up the 2.4GHz band.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014765</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:03:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014758</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>So what about exclusivity?  That is why XM had the initial bigger adds...it wasn't their horrible music programming.  But yeah you're right, no one is forcing you to continue subscribing to Sirius XM.  And if Stern makes Sirius 1 trick pony I guess Oprah and O&A kept XM a no trick pony.<br><br>And take a look, everyone's stock is falling.<br><br>Meanwhile you're the one whining...I'm happy with SIRIUS XM.<br> </div>XM actually got a lot of good reviews for its music programming.  Its playlists were deep and rich, covering the top 40 to the obscure, while Sirius played mostly popular songs.  The #1 reason people went to sat radio was to get music you don't hear on terrestrial radio.  With Sirius they got what they were accustomed hearing on terrestrial radio, which is why they were headed down the path of FAIL.<br><br>Then they added Stern and it was mostly because of that their subscriber numbers picked back up.  But the catch is that Stern isn't cheap.<br><br>Oprah on XM was pretty much in response to Stern on Sirius.  I agree that adding O&A was a boneheaded move because O&A are really not that funny anymore.  But O&A didn't really cost that much compared to lead balloon Stern.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014758</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:02:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014730</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : So what if XM scored deals with Honda and GM?  Have you ever thought that Honda and GM did it all for free? No.  They partnered and developed technology along with XM, such as NavTraffic.  <br><br>Sirius had its own deals with car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Ford, Chrysler to name a few. <br><br>Last I heard GM wasn't doing too well in car sales either.<br><br>Sirius did the exact same thing XM did - partnered with OEMs.  They still didn't get the subscriber numbers until they added Stern.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014730</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:58:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014378</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : Where is the evidence that there will be widespread chaos at the hands of a tiny fraction of people possibly changing firmware in these yet to be invented devices?<br><br>For 2.4GHz, you made claims of "sewage" but that isn't from throws of people illegally modifying hardware.  There is simply a lot of devices sharing that spectrum including such benign unmodifiable devices like microwave ovens and thus far, despite all this "trash", 2.4GHz devices function just fine.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014378</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:59:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014159</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : No duh.  What I'm saying is that it was those lucrative deals that got the early XM subscriber adds over Sirius, not superior programming.  Point being had Sirius scored those early deals, I think XM would have been out of business a long time ago.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22014159</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:27:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22013383</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><b>hottboiinnc</b></A> : many companies make those deals...its how you get your product out to the market and its called business.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22013383</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:26:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012457</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : So what about exclusivity?  That is why XM had the initial bigger adds...it wasn't their horrible music programming.  But yeah you're right, no one is forcing you to continue subscribing to Sirius XM.  And if Stern makes Sirius 1 trick pony I guess Oprah and O&A kept XM a no trick pony.<br><br>And take a look, everyone's stock is falling.<br><br>Meanwhile you're the one whining...I'm happy with SIRIUS XM.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012457</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:57:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012275</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : So basically SIRI was a one trick pony.  They couldn't survive without Stern.<br><br>Problem is that Stern is a lead balloon.<br><br>You're whining about GM and Honda, yet Sirius had contracts with Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler and was an option on Nissan. There may have been others but those are what I remember.  As for the exclusivity of those contracts - so what? That's how you do business.  Don't like it? NO one's forcing you to buy a GM or Honda vehicle.  <br><br>As far as XM and Sirius buying them out - you're right.  The writing was on the wall.  Stern was a magnet for subscribers.  Problem is that still made Sirius a one trick pony. <br><br>The stock's falling, debt is rising. Maybe Ergen will buy them up and run them into the ground for good.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012275</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:17:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012201</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : Yeah, XM was good as making deals with the car industry, making exclusive deals denying Sirius competitive access (eg GM and Honda).  It certainly wasn't their horrible commercial filled programming or horrible Oprah channel (that never has Oprah) or the lame Stern wannabes Opie and Anthony XM tried to charge extra for but had to give up on; eventually just making them free and raising rates on all XM subs.<br><br>Meanwhile, despite not having the big lucrative car contracts that XM did, Sirius' post-Stern growth smoked XM to the point that Sirius acquired XM and not the other way around.  Now I get Sirius' far superior programming in my XM monopolized Acura and superior on-air talent like Stern, Mad Dog and ex-KROQ jocks (from when L.A. radio was the best in the nation).<br><br>XM even with their subscriber number agreed to be bought because they saw the writing on the wall...they were going to be destroyed by Sirius as Sirius made more auto contracts and easily outstripped XM in new subscriber adds.<br><br>I understand that there were a couple of fans of XM's programming, but in the long run XM would not have survived.  XM was the AOL of satellite radio.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012201</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:03:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012155</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : I take it you've never been near a TV station?  <br><br>As for letting the FCC be in charge, yeah, sure. I'm sure they're doing a splendid job, pushing all sorts of wonderful things like BPL and the DTV transition.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012155</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:51:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012126</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>One doesn't have to be an aeronautical engineer to call someone to claims pigs fly, misinformed.<br> </div>That is true, but in this case you haven't told me why I'm misinformed. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012126</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:46:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012116</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  qworster <A HREF="/useremail/u/522717"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>BOY are you wrong-and in bed with the big guys! MILLIONS OF USERS use both bands you have commented about every day-<b>SUCCESSFULLY!!</b> If you take at the number of users in those bands (wireless routers and access points, cordless telephones, audio/video devices and countless other devices) and divide by the size of the two bands in mHz, you'd see that there are literally MILLIONS of users per mHz! How can you in good conscience compare this to low band VHF where under 50 DTV stations will result in 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum to mostly lay fallow-spectrum that could benefit THOUSANDS of AM radio stations, among others?<br><br>White space is a GOOD idea-and the NAB should spend less time fighting it and more time wasting their time and money promoting IBOC-which interferes with fellow broadcasters FAR WORSE then white space ever would!<br> </div>2.4GHz WiFi devices are limited to milliwatts and low gain rubber duck antennas. If you take apart a typical home router's antenna it is just a piece of wire. Don't forget that 2.4GHz is mostly LoS.  It is very limited in the area that will cover and that it will interfere.  But try using a 2.4GHz cordless phone in a heavily populated area like NYC.  That's why DECT phones are being used now, because 2.4GHz is saturated with WiFi.  <br><br>About moving AM stations to low VHF.  I agree that IBOC is a disaster, but if you can't get people to buy a $40 (free) converter box to watch digital TV, how are you going to get them to buy a VHF radio?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012116</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:44:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012096</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  BF69 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>I would like to know which TV channels would be getting interference. Since you seem to know.</div>Probably nearly all of them around here, since at the ground level they are below -114dBm since they are blocked by trees and hills.  Well except the religious and Korean broadcasters that are close by.<br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>So then using your logic cell phones should be banned. So people won't use cell phone jammers.<br> <hr></blockquote><br><br>Cell phone jammers are already illegal but tons of people use them because they are fed up the cell phone nuisance.<br><br>I predict that WSD jammers would be used in much the same manner. In fact all I'd need is really a TV transmitter which isn't that hard to get.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012096</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:39:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012043</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : Sirius was dying, and rightfully so.  They were basically terrestrial radio delivered via satellite - too many DJs talking during the music, and a shallow playlist.  Their stock was about $5 and their subscriber numbers were a fraction of what XM's was.<br><br>Then along came Howard Stern, and his minions of knuckle draggers.  Sirius attracted a lot of subs because of him, and the rightfully deserved death penalty for a crappy business model was delayed.  Problem is that Howard cost Sirius a lot of cash that they didn't have.  Then along came the merger and Sirius figured they'd be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Problem is that XM subs liked how XM was, and Sirius changed it all up, dropping channels, adding these annoying talking DJs during the music etc.  <br><br>Now the stock price is $0.13 and they're likely not to survive.  I say kill them now and be done with it.  Let Stern go to the internet and webcast for all I care.<br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Sorry but they ruled its not a monopoly so give it up. if you do not like the music go to the other 700 placed you can get music from. i cancled 2 extra recievers and listen now to www.theradio.com...same music...same service.<hr></blockquote><br><br>Oh sure, the FCC was right about a lot of things, like fining CBS for the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing, eh? ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22012043</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:30:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011822</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/463293"><b>P Ness</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>What a surprise. Another Stern fan who doesn't mind trashing sat radio for Howard.<br> </div>because that has anything to do with the issue, i am sure he is just a mindless howard stern slave.<br><br>the reason for the problems now has more to do with the contracts of both companies and not the merger...the cost would have caused both companies to be in the same situation now instead of the combined company. <br><br>Also their debt cost increased 150% because of the destruction of our banking system.   not because of the merger.<br><br>But you are just a mindless slave to whom, that you keep spouting off this retoric without even investigating the real facts?<br><br>"Since they're now a monopoly"<br><br>sigh,<br><br>Sorry but they ruled its not a monopoly so give it up.  if you do not like the music go to the other 700 placed you can get music from.  i cancled 2 extra recievers and listen now to www.theradio.com...same music...same service.<br><br>GG]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011822</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:34:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011747</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : With a share price of 13 cents today I don't think they'll be around much longer.<br><br>Sirius was the failing one. If it wasn't for stern they'd be in the digital dustbin and maybe XM would pick up the subs. XM had more subs and a higher share price before Stern came on board Sirius and brought on the knuckle draggers and basically ruined the industry.<br> ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011747</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:04:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011739</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : They had a ton more subs than Sirius did before Stern came on board, so they were doing something right.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011739</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:59:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011633</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>...I don't care about people watching TV."  (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)<br><br>etc etc<br><br>So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right.  Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.  <br> </div>Because we get sucha  quality product from NAB affiliated entities. God forbid johny misses survivor! If his local station gets interfered with too much he might start getting the wrong idea about things...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011633</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:11:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011523</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : XM's music channels sucked ass pre merger.  Don't like it, cancel.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011523</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:50:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011122</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/522717"><b>qworster</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>     :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>      :</small><br><br>You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights.  By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year.<br> </div>In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution.  The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.  <br><br>But I do have to ask, how do you propose the FCC is going to handle enforcement if this gets out of hand?<br><br>At least with illegally modified vehicles the cops can pull them over. With illegally modded white space devices, it will be not as easy, plus the FCC has shown that it is not interested in any serious effort at enforcement.  It will be like the wild west with everyone stepping all over each other and no one giving a shit.<br> </div>BOY are you wrong-and in bed with the big guys! MILLIONS OF USERS use both bands you have commented about every day-<b>SUCCESSFULLY!!</b> If you take at the number of users in those bands (wireless routers and access points, cordless telephones, audio/video devices and countless other devices) and divide by the size of the two bands in mHz, you'd see that there are literally MILLIONS of users per mHz! How can you in good conscience compare this to low band VHF where under 50 DTV stations will result in 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum to mostly lay fallow-spectrum that could benefit THOUSANDS of AM radio stations, among others?<br><br>White space is a GOOD idea-and the NAB should spend less time fighting it and more time wasting their time and money promoting IBOC-which interferes with fellow broadcasters FAR WORSE then white space ever would!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22011122</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:50:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22010780</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/466028"><b>RayW</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by cornelius785_nli :</small><br><br>but the only thing is that the 'TV transmission engineers' is just a new from for some bueracratic TV manager that has no clue on spectrum or anything.  <br> </div>References please.  I would like to know several independent locations where you found that interesting cross reference.<br><small>--<br>I am not lost, I find myself every time.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22010780</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:21:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009761</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : but the only thing is that the 'TV transmission engineers' is just a new from for some bueracratic TV manager that has no clue on spectrum or anything.  the only group(s) that should be involved in whitespace devices is the FCC and possibly the IEEE (to set the communication standards).  who does the 'TV transmission engineers' answer to?  the FCC of course.<br><br>imo, the 'hacking' and 'modding' are moot points. the device could be built in such away that software hacks are next to impossible (look at most ANY device that has firmware, when is the last time you loaded a 3rd BIOS image, router (with the exception being wrt54), wireless card, etc.?).  for physical hardware hacks, well you'll never stop people from feeding the RFout to an external amp or to a special high gain directional antennae.  the box could also be made in such a way that you'll need to cut with a saw to cut it open and add a nice FCC warning label with fine to deter most would be hackers.<br><br>also nice job on the FUD spreading]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009761</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:16:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009778</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : What a surprise. Another Stern fan who doesn't mind trashing sat radio for Howard.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009778</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:28:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009653</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Sure I do.  And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective.  </div>I would like to know which TV channels would be getting interference. Since you seem to know.<br><br><div class="bquote">I'm sure just like cell phone jammers someone will just make a WSD jammer (it's not that hard) to emit a signal just long enough to render WSD devices in the area ineffective.<br></div>So then using your logic cell phones should be banned. So people won't use cell phone jammers.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009653</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:13:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009640</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>Please...this isn't about interference.  This is about an industry lobby not wanting new competitors.  The reason they're bitching about this is the same reason they spent millions lobbying against the satellite radio merger.<br><br>They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks.  They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.<br><br>Meanwhile I live and work in densely populated areas and don't suffer in the slightest from so-called sewer-like "spectrum" pollution with my 900MHz, 2.4GHz or 5GHz devices. <br> </div>As a current sat radio customer (XM), I'd say that the merger has made things a lot worse.  =<br> </div>if it wasn't for the merger neither would exist right now.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009640</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:10:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009409</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : One doesn't have to be an aeronautical engineer to call someone to claims pigs fly, misinformed.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009409</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:30:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009394</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : -nm-]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009394</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:28:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009390</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : I've very happy with the merger cause now I don't have to have 2 radios to get Stern and MLB.  Meanwhile the NAtB wasn't protesting the merger because they wanted to protect you from evil...it's because a combined service is a stronger competitor against terrestrial radio.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22009390</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:28:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008984</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Please...this isn't about interference.  This is about an industry lobby not wanting new competitors.  The reason they're bitching about this is the same reason they spent millions lobbying against the satellite radio merger.<br><br>They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks.  They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.<br><br>Meanwhile I live and work in densely populated areas and don't suffer in the slightest from so-called sewer-like "spectrum" pollution with my 900MHz, 2.4GHz or 5GHz devices. <br> </div>As a current sat radio customer (XM), I'd say that the merger has made things a lot worse.  They screwed up half the music channels and are now raising the price for second receivers.  Since they're now a monopoly, if I want sat radio I can't speak with my feet.<br><br>Broadcasters absolutely give a damn about fringe areas.  That's the reason many are requesting power increases post analog shutoff.  There's a little thing called ratings in this business that matter.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008984</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:31:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008934</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  rawwhide <A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right.  Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.  <br> </div>Do you work for NAB or just misinformed?<br> </div>What's your qualifications to call me misinformed again?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008934</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:22:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008932</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  BF69 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution.  The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.  </div>which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know?<br> </div>Sure I do.  And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective.  <br><br>Furthermore, a signal of -114dbm while usable for me with a high gain antenna (which would bring it up above -114dbm) would basically give the green light to a white space device to fire up and pollute away.  <br><br>I'm sure just like cell phone jammers someone will just make a WSD jammer (it's not that hard) to emit a signal just long enough to render WSD devices in the area ineffective.<br><br>This is yet another reason to say NO to WSD's, because they can be shut off very easily.<br><br>Finally, testing of these devices was conducted in a very slipshod manner with the FCC again just relying on a half assed test to make a decision.  Not surprising when the agency is packed with lawyers and lobbyists who have no clue about RF in the real world.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008932</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:22:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008919</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/195618"><b>rawwhide</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right.  Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.  <br> </div>Do you work for NAB or just misinformed?<br><small>--<br>5 fingers + a thumb......</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008919</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:21:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008884</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  BF69 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>It's NOTHING like BPL which by the way could have been futher along except a group of whiny little ham bitches that think it's 1929.<br> </div>'nuff said.  Based on this statement you clearly have no clue about interference, what causes it, what levels are acceptable and how it's resolved.  From the looks of it you can't tell an electron from an M and M.   :D]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008884</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:14:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008826</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution.  The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.  </div>which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008826</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:04:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008812</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : Please...this isn't about interference.  This is about an industry lobby not wanting new competitors.  The reason they're bitching about this is the same reason they spent millions lobbying against the satellite radio merger.<br><br>They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks.  They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.<br><br>Meanwhile I live and work in densely populated areas and don't suffer in the slightest from so-called sewer-like "spectrum" pollution with my 900MHz, 2.4GHz or 5GHz devices. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008812</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:01:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008810</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many.</div>MILLIONS of people abuse alcohol and drive. Thus using your logic ban cars.<br><br><div class="bquote">My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas.</div>This has been proven not to be a factor. I live in a fringe area. I'm thinking about ditching cable for OTA. I'm not concerned on bit, but thanks for yours. I'm 100% for this. No one ask you to speak for me.<br><br><div class="bquote">White space devices are like BPL.  They may sound like a good idea, but in reality they are going to cause much more problems than they solve.</div>It's NOTHING like BPL which by the way could have been futher along except a group of whiny little ham bitches that think it's 1929.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008810</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:00:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008778</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Bit <A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights.  By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year.<br> </div>In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution.  The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.  <br><br>But I do have to ask, how do you propose the FCC is going to handle enforcement if this gets out of hand?<br><br>At least with illegally modified vehicles the cops can pull them over. With illegally modded white space devices, it will be not as easy, plus the FCC has shown that it is not interested in any serious effort at enforcement.  It will be like the wild west with everyone stepping all over each other and no one giving a shit.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008778</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:57:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008748</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1622702"><b>Bit</b></A> : You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights.  By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008748</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:52:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008736</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  BF69 <A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>So because someone may use a device ilelgally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned.<br> </div>No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many.<br><br>My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas.<br><br>White space devices are like BPL.  They may sound like a good idea, but in reality they are going to cause much more problems than they solve.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008736</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:50:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008729</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Eat Me <A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features?<br><br>Their attitude will be something like:<br><br>"The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC)<br><br>"Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna)<br><br>"The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand)<br><br>"I don't care about people watching TV."  (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)<br><br>etc etc<br><br>So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right.  Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.  <br> </div>So because someone may use a device illegally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008729</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:49:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Here&#x27;s the problem</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008697</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/693768"><b>Eat Me</b></A> : What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features?<br><br>Their attitude will be something like:<br><br>"The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC)<br><br>"Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna)<br><br>"The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand)<br><br>"I don't care about people watching TV."  (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)<br><br>etc etc<br><br>So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right.  Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22008697</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:43:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
