Cable Industry Jumps Into White Space Fight Tells FCC White Space will disrupt cable broadband... Last year, the National Association Of Broadcasters (NAB) did everything in their power to derail White Space broadband, from declaring the technology would inherently create interference armageddon (something not supported by FCC testing) to trotting out celebrities like Dolly Parton to feign interest. While white space broadband can cause interference if done incorrectly, NAB and others are equally concerned about the competitive impact a new video broadcast mechanism would have on revenues. After extensive testing, and with support from giants like Google and Microsoft, unlicensed White Space broadband finally saw unanimous approval last year by the FCC. NAB found an ally this week in the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), who issued a filing (pdf) with the FCC urging the agency to reconsider their approval of white space broadband. While NAB has traditionally argued that white space services will harm TV broadcasts, the NCTA goes a step further, claiming it could harm regular cable broadband users: the 100 mW power output level adopted for personal/portable devices will interfere with cable television viewing, especially in adjoining housing units, and could adversely impact cable modem Internet access and other cable services in the home. . .while the Commission took several important steps to mitigate potential harmful interference to cable headend facilities that bring distant broadcast signals to communities, especially in rural areas, its cable headend protections are inadequate and some provisions need further clarification. In short, the cable industry is looking for rules that lower the allowable power level of unlicensed devices.
|
  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | The best way to win in the market is to prevent competiton If you don't want to compete on price, service, options, etc the best alternative is to block your competition from existing in the first place. Failing that, you then use your lawyers to harass them constantly once they start-up... but the best way of all is to murder them in the womb.
Best way to have biggest market share is make it so consumers have few choices.... then you can not worry about providing services people want and instead just give them whatever you feel they will take.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Follow the money "In short, the cable industry is looking for rules that lower the allowable power level of unlicensed devices."
Should read:
"In short, the cable industry is looking for rules that handicap unlicensed devices which compete with their high speed internet product."
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  | | | Re: Follow the money Yeah, always on the prowl for more ways to rape and abuse us  | |
|
wvcaverPremium
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH | Cable CO. ?? If it interferes with cable then the cable CO. has a cable leak ! which is is a violation of the FCC ! | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Cable CO. ?? Oh the irony! | |
| | | | said by wvcaver:If it interferes with cable then the cable CO. has a cable leak ! which is is a violation of the FCC ! Not if it's interference to received signals at the headend. | |
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Cable CO. ?? They already got provisions for headend protection. They are now claiming potential interference to equipment out in the 'hood.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
1 edit | said by fifty nine:said by wvcaver:If it interferes with cable then the cable CO. has a cable leak ! which is is a violation of the FCC ! Not if it's interference to received signals at the headend. Cable receivers including modems should be more than insulated against low power external signals considering the various booming RF mess that is our homes, their RF assemblies insulated so that the only input they take is via the coax.
The alternative is that it's getting into the soft plant via an open tap, unterminated splitter or similar, in which case that open connection will also be leaking downstream signal and will likely be doing bad things to the cable network in terms of RF ingress and micro reflections with or without white space signals. | |
| | | |  Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Cable CO. ?? ..but that would also be an FCC violation..
I would like proof that White Spaces would cause interference with a Cable Companies' operations. If they can show actual proof, then I'll go with it.
..and I don't want the "It'll dip into our profits" BS. That's NOT a technical reason. I need one to be satisfied.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|WifeWS[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 Linux] | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| I was about to say the same thing and you got to it before I did! Everything is about money and if they have to spend less money on maintenance, maintaining the cable plant. More money in there pockets, of course they are going to fight this kind of thing. If they dont want white space problems run cable out to rural parts if that will ever happen. | |
|
| | fiber wouldn't distrupt if it they used fiber TO THE HOUSE.... oooooh snap.... | |
| | | | Re: fiber And spend money to actually help the consumer? We can't have that! | |
|
| | "could adversely impact..." "cable modem Internet access and other cable services in the home..."
Well, then, all they need is a little more tin-foil--to protect 'em from those nasty White Space devices, in addition to all of the UFOs, in the area.  | |
| | | Just my opinion If people have so much trouble with what the cable and telco's do as far as service and avalible content then drop them. It's that simple. I dropped them years ago.
Got tired of poor service and over pricing of what you get.
If more people did this then you would see them change the way they do business. Until then they will rape the american public as they see fit. I am fully behind white space broadband. I hope it steals all their customer base and runs them in the ground. Oh but wait then our over zealous goverment will just blow a couple hundred billion
bailing them out like every other big corparation in this country. Just my opinion. If you agree fine, if not that is fine to. | |
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | I find it interesting.... There is all of this resistance to "White Space Broadband" a technology that just might work yet there is so much support for BPL a technology that has been abandoned by every country on earth except in the United States.
It is apparent the real story is the incumbents know very well BPL will never be a viable technology and there fore not a threat to what what amounts to their broadband monopoly in many areas. The fact it has serious interference problems does not phase them one bit because the interference would affect somebody else.
But White Space wireless could effect their bottom line because it is a technology that just might work, and could work very well. Because of this they are howling.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
1 edit | Tells FCC White Space will disrupt cable broadband... I guess they left out the fact that it will only disrupt cable broadband if the network isn't properly maintained...
edi - After reviewing the filing to the FCC, the tests seem pretty fishy too. They are aiming yagi antennas at receivers and testing for interference. I doubt that setup replicates a real world deployment of WSBB devices.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| | | what a second... i thought the cable tv networks were all fiber? RF can't interfere with fiber optics. i think i'm being lied too... .
this is such BS. they perform tests and come up with results that, surprise, support their view. if it really does interfere, then publish a couple papers to a IEEE conference, journal, or similar. i'm just looking for some peer review done by a third party.
maybe i haven't read enough of the complaint PDF, but it does strike me a little odd that it was more of a test of "lets do our best to try to make the picture fail" than "hey, let's make a 'whitespace device simulator' and see what happens to the picture". this is based mostly on: using a directional antennae (i'd expect the antenna for a whitespace device to be omnidirectional unless you are far far away from an access point), the simulated whitespace device is just additive white gaussian noise (although it may be similar, couldn't they ask google/microsoft for some basic specifications on their whitespace device? this may help prove or disprove the cable company's view depending on many factors). I also get the feeling of there some 'smoke and mirrors' going here. | |
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4 | Re: what a second... Concern is not Cable head-end or distribution network it is poorly shielded customer devices. Interference would affect customers that use RF link to connect set-top box or Cable to TV or other A/V gear.
/tom | |
| | | | | Re: what a second... Those are the same leaky cable modems that interfere with all of my radios. | |
|
| |
|
|
