1 recommendation |
Here's the problemWhat happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features?
Their attitude will be something like:
"The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC)
"Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna)
"The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand)
"I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)
etc etc
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. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness 1 edit
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2009-Mar-3 5:49 pm
Re: Here's the problemsaid by fifty nine:What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features? Their attitude will be something like: "The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC) "Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna) "The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand) "I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?) etc etc 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. So because someone may use a device illegally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned. | |
|
| | 1 edit |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by 88615298:So because someone may use a device ilelgally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned. No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many. My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas. 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. | |
|
| | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 5:52 pm
Re: Here's the problemYou 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. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by Bit00: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. 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. But I do have to ask, how do you propose the FCC is going to handle enforcement if this gets out of hand? 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. | |
|
| | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 2 edits |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 6:01 pm
Re: Here's the problemPlease...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.
They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks. They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.
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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by Bit00: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. They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks. They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership. 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. 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. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 7:28 pm
Re: Here's the problemI'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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemWhat a surprise. Another Stern fan who doesn't mind trashing sat radio for Howard. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 2 edits |
to fifty nine
Re: Here's the problemXM's music channels sucked ass pre merger. Don't like it, cancel. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemThey had a ton more subs than Sirius did before Stern came on board, so they were doing something right. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 3 edits |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-4 10:03 am
Re: Here's the problemYeah, 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.
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).
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.
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemSo basically SIRI was a one trick pony. They couldn't survive without Stern.
Problem is that Stern is a lead balloon.
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.
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.
The stock's falling, debt is rising. Maybe Ergen will buy them up and run them into the ground for good. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-4 10:57 am
Re: Here's the problemSo 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.
And take a look, everyone's stock is falling.
Meanwhile you're the one whining...I'm happy with SIRIUS XM. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by Bit00: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. And take a look, everyone's stock is falling. Meanwhile you're the one whining...I'm happy with SIRIUS XM. 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. 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. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to fifty nine
I disagree. Stern has brought a lot of subs to Sirius, but I rather enjoy the music channels.
Do I listen to Stern? Yes, but he is getting increasingly boring, with the sameo sameo every bloody day.
He killed nearly 90 minutes one show yapping about Joaquin Phoenix's appearance on letterman. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to Bit00
many companies make those deals...its how you get your product out to the market and its called business. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-4 3:27 pm
Re: Here's the problemNo 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemSo 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.
Sirius had its own deals with car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Ford, Chrysler to name a few.
Last I heard GM wasn't doing too well in car sales either.
Sirius did the exact same thing XM did - partnered with OEMs. They still didn't get the subscriber numbers until they added Stern. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already Premium Member join:2001-08-29 way way out |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:What a surprise. Another Stern fan who doesn't mind trashing sat radio for Howard. because that has anything to do with the issue, i am sure he is just a mindless howard stern slave. 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. Also their debt cost increased 150% because of the destruction of our banking system. not because of the merger. But you are just a mindless slave to whom, that you keep spouting off this retoric without even investigating the real facts? "Since they're now a monopoly" sigh, 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. GG | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Here's the problemSirius 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. 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. 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. quote: 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.
Oh sure, the FCC was right about a lot of things, like fining CBS for the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing, eh? | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by Bit00: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. They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks. They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership. 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. As a current sat radio customer (XM), I'd say that the merger has made things a lot worse. = if it wasn't for the merger neither would exist right now. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemWith a share price of 13 cents today I don't think they'll be around much longer.
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. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine: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. which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know? | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by 88615298:said by fifty nine: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. which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know? Sure I do. And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective. 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. 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. This is yet another reason to say NO to WSD's, because they can be shut off very easily. 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2009-Mar-3 8:13 pm
Re: Here's the problemsaid by fifty nine:Sure I do. And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective. I would like to know which TV channels would be getting interference. Since you seem to know. 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.
So then using your logic cell phones should be banned. So people won't use cell phone jammers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by 88615298:I would like to know which TV channels would be getting interference. Since you seem to know. 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. quote: So then using your logic cell phones should be banned. So people won't use cell phone jammers.
Cell phone jammers are already illegal but tons of people use them because they are fed up the cell phone nuisance. 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. | |
|
| | | | | 4 edits |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by Bit00: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. 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. But I do have to ask, how do you propose the FCC is going to handle enforcement if this gets out of hand? 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. BOY are you wrong-and in bed with the big guys! MILLIONS OF USERS use both bands you have commented about every day- SUCCESSFULLY!! 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? 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! | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by qworster:BOY are you wrong-and in bed with the big guys! MILLIONS OF USERS use both bands you have commented about every day- SUCCESSFULLY!! 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? 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! 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. 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? | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
1 recommendation |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many. MILLIONS of people abuse alcohol and drive. Thus using your logic ban cars. My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas. 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. 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. 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. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Here's the problemsaid by 88615298: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. '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. | |
|
| | | | | Bit00 Premium Member join:2009-02-19 00000 1 edit |
Bit00
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 7:28 pm
Re: Here's the problem-nm- | |
|
| Lagz Premium Member join:2000-09-03 The Rock |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine: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. Do you work for NAB or just misinformed? | |
|
| | ••••••• |
| |
cornelius785_nli to fifty nine
Anon
2009-Mar-3 9:16 pm
to fifty nine
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.
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.
also nice job on the FUD spreading | |
|
| | RayW Premium Member join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT |
RayW
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 11:21 pm
Re: Here's the problemsaid by cornelius785_nli :
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. References please. I would like to know several independent locations where you found that interesting cross reference. | |
|
| | |
to cornelius785_nli
I take it you've never been near a TV station?
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. | |
|
| |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:...I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?) etc etc 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. 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... | |
|
Kett2000 Premium Member join:2002-04-23 Lilburn, GA |
Kett2000
Premium Member
2009-Mar-3 5:44 pm
Sueing the FCC on behalf of us?NAB sued the FCC "on behalf of the millions of American households who rely on broadcast television for entertainment, news and information."
I never asked NAB to kill White Space Broadband. | |
|
| ••• |
1 recommendation |
On MY behalf?!NAB, take my name off the list of people who you're doing this on behalf of. Thanks in advance.
Also rot in hell. | |
|
| •••••• |
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
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. | |
|
| ••••••••• |
|
The Luddites are coming, the Luddites are coming! The NAB is concerned by a non problem. When the original NTSC standards were created in the 1940's, Vacuum Tubes were the norm and bandpass filters were so primitive that a one full channel guard band was required between VHF channels and a six channel guard band was required between UHF channels. Today's sharp cutoff filter technology will allow low power white space devices to operate within unused channels without causing interference. With proper shaping of the white space devices broadcast spectrum, higher power devices could be used without causing interference and that is what I believe has caused the NAB concern. Extensive field testing has shown that the use of a vacant channel used as a guard band would not degrade reception of adjacent active Television Channels. I would like to see the NAB to prove that the use of vacant channels will cause interference. | |
|
| •••••••••••• |
|
Microphones...I am concerned about these devices as well, not about their affects on broadcast TV, although that is a very legitimate concern as well, but about their affects on wireless microphone users. The white spaces aren't "empty" as many have stated.
They are responsibly used and or enjoyed by millions of people in the United States. Concerts, Churches, Sporting Events, Video and TV crews, etc.
Some of us are using white spaces legally, most of us aren't because the FCC has until now provided no legal way to use them for concerts and churches (what I do). But we use them responsibly, and are careful to avoid not only TV channels directly but possible harmonics as they can also cause interference both ways.
We are being prepared to be put off the air by an onslaught of noise. No more wireless headset microphones at concerts, no more pastors walking around at churches, no more musicians having freedom to roam around, no more sporting events and outdoor events that can be freely wandered around by the presenters.
When Americans realize this, white space devices will be hated. But by the time most Americans realize how much wireless microphones really ARE important to them, it will be too late... | |
|
| ••••••••• |
kamm join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY 1 edit |
kamm
Member
2009-Mar-4 12:10 pm
Fakk the NAB......period. | |
|
|
|