 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | OMG... this is the first time I've seen that graphic and I was laughing my ass off. | |
| 
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Don't implement Fully test it first! None of this making fast, releasing fast, and patch problems later mentality! MICROSOFT! Do it right first.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|  | 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Don't implement said by wruckman  :... MICROSOFT! Do it right first. Micro$#|t isn't capable of doing it right! Just look at their awful crap OS, and the criminal enterprises it has spawned. You want worms, spam, and viruses crawling out of your TV set? Their garbage needs to be quarantined to PCs, and not allowed to infect anything else.
And what's this preoccupation with Internet connectivity? Does broadband access have to screw up every other communications medium? Power-line access screwing up radio, and now this nonsense?
I can just see the spammers taking over all the adjacent TV channels and selling more snake oil! No thanks!
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| | | 
AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ
|  What about hospital equipment disrupting TV channels?
I never understood how they were allowed to bleed over TV signals like that but god forbid you have a cell phone turned on within the premises. | |
| |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: What about hospital equipment disrupting TV channels? said by AZ_OGM :I never understood how they were allowed to bleed over TV signals like that ... They are NOT allowed. If you were to have called the FCC, they would have been forced to fix it, and get fined.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| | dishrich
join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL
4 edits | said by AZ_OGM :I never understood how they were allowed to bleed over TV signals like that but god forbid you have a cell phone turned on within the premises. said by TamaraB :They are NOT allowed. If you were to have called the FCC, they would have been forced to fix it, and get fined. FALSE, because they ARE allowed, as cable ch 19 thru 21 are commonly used for over the air paging services, which is where they ARE legally assigned spectrum. The problem was, your cable system was most likely suffering from signal ingress/egress, which was allowing those signals to bleed into your cable. (& most likely was leaking it's own signals OUT) Cable ch 16 was/is commonly used for air traffic control transmissions, which is one of the primary reasons why the FCC started cracking down on "leaky" cable systems in general. There are many OTA services that share the SAME spectrum that a cable system uses, many of which commonly reside in the CATV "midband" range of 14-22.
Do you also realize that CATV ch's 95-97 ARE across the entire FM band freqency? And obviously, CATV ch's 2-13 ARE the same at the OTA broadcasts, which in cities that DO have these same OTA channels, it causes reception problems on the cable system - in many cases, the cable system may not even choose to use those channels, due to high-powered TV stations. (we don't have that problem, since our closest VHF station is over 60+ miles away) But because a cable system is considered a "closed" transmission system, THAT is why this is allowed - it's up to the cable system to make sure they are compliant with leakage standards, both ingress/egress. 
We had the very same problems all over Springfield back in those days as well. All these channels throughout Springfield would range from pretty clean, to totally TRASHED, depending on where you were, quality of the hookups, etc. Our system leaked SO bad, that they could NOT even use Ch 16 for awhile, until they fixed their leaks.
But after 2 system rebuilds, the majority of locations I've seen have everything clean - but again, if a particular residence has bad cabling, splitters, connectors, poor shielded TV tuners, etc, the very same problem WILL come back. It only takes ONE bad connector for these problems to surface. But unfortunately, if you are like next door to one of these particular transmitters, sometimes it is just not possible to 100% shield the system from these transmissions. | |
| | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: What about hospital equipment disrupting TV channels? said by dishrich :FALSE, because they ARE allowed, as cable ch 19 thru 21 are commonly used for over the air paging services, which is where they ARE legally assigned spectrum. Wait a Sec! As a former amateur radio operator, I know that the FCC regulates the frequency spectrum. If "ch 19 thru 21 are commonly used ... [for] paging services" then they must comply with FCC regs mandating they not interfere with licensed services on those same frequencies. Their use of that spectrum is limited to "in-house" use, and they may not radiate it outside their premises.
If the Hospital's paging system interferes with licensed spectrum outside the hospital itself, it violates FCC regulations.
Are you saying this is a "FALSE"statement?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| | | | dishrich
join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL
4 edits | Re: What about hospital equipment disrupting TV channels? said by TamaraB :Wait a Sec! As a former amateur radio operator, I know that the FCC regulates the frequency spectrum. If "ch 19 thru 21 are commonly used ... [for] paging services" then they must comply with FCC regs mandating they not interfere with licensed services on those same frequencies. Their use of that spectrum is limited to "in-house" use, and they may not radiate it outside their premises. If the Hospital's paging system interferes with licensed spectrum outside the hospital itself, it violates FCC regulations. Are you saying this is a "FALSE"statement? Yes, because "the FCC regulates the frequency spectrum" ONLY for OTA signal transmissions - NOT for what a CATV system "chooses" to use within their OWN closed system.
It all depends - IF the hospital's particular paging system spectrum was ONLY for use WITHIN the hospital confines, & is exeeding their authorized power level, &/or it is NOT staying within it's assigned freqs, only then is it violating FCC regs. But, you DO realize there IS spectrum that is used for high-powered pocket pagers, police radios, airline traffic, etc. & unfortunately, those freqs ARE in the CATV midband. As I also told you, there are 3 CATV channels that share the FM band space - unfortunately, there are instances where strong FM transmitters can trash those freqs on a CATV system, making them unusable, that NO amount of shielding can fix.
And as far as the CATV system goes, they do NOT have to get a license to use those same freqs, since as I already mentioned, a CATV is considered a "closed-loop" system, & therefore is NOT "broadcasting" on those freqs. Because of this, there (in theory) is NO co-mingling of transmissions between the CATV system & those OTA devices. A CATV system does NOT have to get FCC permission on which freqs they use - only that they do NOT radiate their signal over a certain threshold. And this is one problem where CATV companies get into with customers who do their own wiring, & DON'T know what the hell they are doing! I run into this constantly with clients, who (incorrectly) blame the cable system for their crappy reception, which they actually brought onto themselves with their do-it-themselves TV hookups.  (ask fiberguy & cabletool & they'll tell you the same thing )
The bottom line - almost EVERY CATV system IS sharing many of the same freqs as many OTA devices & services. Again, the FCC gives the priority to the OTA devices, as long as they are within defined limits. It is up to the CATV system to ensure the proper shielding of their system/equipment. Again, it is NO different than a CATV system attempting to use ch 2-13 in markets WITH strong 2-13 OTA stations.
When I was going down to school@SIU-Carbondale a few decades ago,  the local VHF stations (3, 6, 8, 10 & 12) would sometimes have "co-channel" interfearance in them, since the cable system used all those same channels for TV service. In the case of ch 10, it was also an OTA translator for the local NBC station on 6, which you could see superimposed on top of WGN, which was on CATV ch 10. The rest of the stations were broadcast on the CATV system on the same channels, which sometimes caused multiple ghosting, sync bars drifting, etc. If you didn't have EVERY connector tight, it only got worse. Finally after they rebuilt the system, the reception improved drastically, but again, you had to have a TIGHT system to keep it like that. | |
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
3 edits | Unlicensed? Is that a try to get even the testing of this product stopped?
The FCC used a physically damaged unit for testing, neglecting a working model they had for backup.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···nit.html
It's more likely they cant get their DRM crapola onto the devices (which are another medium for pirates), so they cry wolf.
Look at the size of the testing unit
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
| | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: C'mon! you can also count the temporary 'white space' in many other bands that exists when no one else is transmitting. it is not easy to utilize this white space, but there is interest and research going on. the main obstaticals to this is the FCC and most (if not all) companies that paid lots of money for their slice of the spectrum. | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: C'mon! I thought over the air broadcasters had a free license? I think the potential for problems is there, but then again... its over the air television, nobody is going to die. If the FCC can be satisfied (tough to do), then give it a 5 year license. If there are problems, then MS/Google will lose their investment and have nobody to blame but themselves and their subcontractors! | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by qworster :Let me clue you into something: The NAB is owned by the incumbent broadcasters and that's who they care about. They are headed by a former beer distributor who only knows how much to bribe each lawmaker to get what they want from them! Well yea, the NAB is the trade/lobying orgnization for broadcasters.
This is all about them not wanting the spectrum used to enable a service that will be competing for eyeballs (wireless broadband), and thus eat into their advertising dollars. This is one aspect of wireless broardband they think they can fight, via the use of this bogus interference argument.
If you're a TV/radio engineer, go to the FCC website and read the NAB-submitted comments to white space NPRM, they're hilarious. Like many submissions to the FCC, the NAB figures they'll be read by non-enigineer gov't bureaocrats and they thus can snow them with technical BS.
The big clue that this is not about interference is that the NAB says nothing about the 100's of thousands illegal "white space" unlicensed wireless microphones in the TV bands, used by musicians, church groups, etc. Of course, there existence proves that interference isn't a problem, since the sky isn't falling now ... | |
| | 
leXicon5
Pelosi, SHUT YOUR Fing Pie Hole
Premium
join:2000-12-27
Saint Louis, MO
| said by qworster :I Let me clue you into something: Let me clue YOU into something....if you're an engineer, then you should KNOW what effect this will have on most wireless microphones. Forget broadband if you can...for a moment. This has more to do with sound engineering than broadband. This, because of the strength of the signals, can render hundreds of wireless mic systems worthless. The frequency agility they promote is laughable. Since wireless mics put out miniscule amounts of power...there is NO way their POS will detect it and jump to another freq.
The number of frequencies that wireless mics can use is small already...and it's right smack in the range MS wants to use. You cant just send in the mics and have them adjusted...that can be to a point but not out of the range of the MS POS equipment.
So...those of us with half a brain, instead of pitching it to our representatives as a potential risk for sound contractors with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in wireless mics...we're pitching it as a risk to their next re-election campaign....it'll cost them more when hiring sound contractors...that means slam dunk...you don't MESS with their re-election funds....screw that. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·