dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Poised To Approve White Space Broadband
McDowell: Could see a 5-0 approval....
Despite a last ditch effort by the National Association of Broadcasters, the politicians they pay to love them and Dolly Parton, it appears that the November 4 vote on white space broadband will not only move forward, it may pass overwhelmingly. FCC Commissioner Robert "what broadband problem?" McDowell tells Reuters he thinks there's a good chance the vote could be 5-0 in favor, quite a feat for a frequently politically divided commission. Sorry, Wally.
view:
topics flat nest 

MalibuMaxx
Premium Member
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN

1 recommendation

MalibuMaxx

Premium Member

You have got to be kidding me... right?

Wow well if they didn't want to ruin OTA T.V. if it passes they will shoot it down somehow. They really want to kill OTA broadcasts don't they?

This is insanity with a passion. Digital T.V. OTA broadcasts are so touchy already. Once again Wi-max is our ticket to any kind of public broadband system not a spectrum already in use.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 edit

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

i have no problems with digital OTA tv

i did have to go through a few antennas but once i had the right antenna its flawless.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by ArrayList:

i have no problems with digital OTA tv

i did have to go through a few antennas but once i had the right antenna its flawless.
Me neither but once a neighbor purchases one of these whitespace devices and it malfunctions, you can kiss OTA goodbye.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by n2jtx See ProfileMe neither but once a neighbor purchases one of these whitespace devices and it malfunctions, you can kiss OTA goodbye.
[/BQUOTE :


really? why is that? i thought that Digital OTA was in different spectrum than analog OTA.

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by ArrayList:

really? why is that? i thought that Digital OTA was in different spectrum than analog OTA.
Nope. They were assigned new channels in the traditional analog TV bands. Many are in UHF 52-69 which was recently auctioned off to other services. As of Feb, they will have to move down to lower channels and drop their analog transmission. Some (not all) will move the digital signal to where their analog was. Others are going to some other unoccupied channel between 5 and 51 (mostly near the top of that range).
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to MalibuMaxx

Member

to MalibuMaxx
said by MalibuMaxx:

Wow well if they didn't want to ruin OTA T.V. if it passes they will shoot it down somehow. They really want to kill OTA broadcasts don't they?

This is insanity with a passion. Digital T.V. OTA broadcasts are so touchy already. Once again Wi-max is our ticket to any kind of public broadband system not a spectrum already in use.
Yeah right. Wi-max might reach areas where some of my friends live in about 2025. And they only live a few miles outside of town.

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think Microsoft and Google are going to spend huge money building WSD towers everywhere, especially in the middle of nowhere. News flash: they aren't. NONE of you clamoring for this because you don't have broadband will EVER see a WSD tower in range. WiMAX WILL spread, it just won't happen this week.

The WIA, despite what they're saying to get approval, has NO interest in providing rural internet. They want to provide lucrative PORTABLE service in CITIES.

Name any specific rural spot you're interested to see get broadband. I'll bet you $100 right now WiMax or a wired service reaches it before WSD broadband does.

Now give specs of what you would consider minimum broadband internet including speed, cap and acceptable content/protocol restrictions. I'll bet you another $100 no WSD tower that's been in operation more than a month will be able to reliably meet that spec. Payout 1 year after the first tower provides internet.

My personal TV is safe from WSD internet because there's cable and DSL broadband available here and I'm not on a through road to have mobile devices going by all the time.

But that only holds until they start selling WSD WAPs and people discover the range they can get with them.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by MrMoody:

The WIA, despite what they're saying to get approval, has NO interest in providing rural internet. They want to provide lucrative PORTABLE service in CITIES.
Absolutely, in fact fixed nominally licensed rural white space devices could have been approved before this without opposition from broadcasters if they hadn't been linked to unlicensed mobile devices designed for use in congested urban areas. The worst part is the white space devices can't possibly work successfully in some of the most RF congested urban areas (fewest white spaces available and greatest demand) unless broadcast television as we know it disappears. Why doesn't the WIA ever bother to count the licensed Class A and low power TV stations?

anon12
@direcpc.com

anon12 to MrMoody

Anon

to MrMoody
said by MrMoody:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think Microsoft and Google are going to spend huge money building WSD towers everywhere, especially in the middle of nowhere. News flash: they aren't. NONE of you clamoring for this because you don't have broadband will EVER see a WSD tower in range. WiMAX WILL spread, it just won't happen this week.

The WIA, despite what they're saying to get approval, has NO interest in providing rural internet. They want to provide lucrative PORTABLE service in CITIES.

Name any specific rural spot you're interested to see get broadband. I'll bet you $100 right now WiMax or a wired service reaches it before WSD broadband does.

Now give specs of what you would consider minimum broadband internet including speed, cap and acceptable content/protocol restrictions. I'll bet you another $100 no WSD tower that's been in operation more than a month will be able to reliably meet that spec. Payout 1 year after the first tower provides internet.

My personal TV is safe from WSD internet because there's cable and DSL broadband available here and I'm not on a through road to have mobile devices going by all the time.

But that only holds until they start selling WSD WAPs and people discover the range they can get with them.
we will just have to wait and see wont we.I bet i don't know how you are going to spend your money either now do i,as you don't know how they are going to spend theirs.If they just put towers near other cell towers in my area then i will be able to get it

It never ceases to amaze me as to how you have to shoot down new tech.I mean let the people hope they will someday be able to get broadband.I know people like you have tried to shoot down everything from pots to evdo saying that it would not work,or company's would not deploy in their area,but you know what i live in the sticks and i can use a cell phone,and evdo,but choose not to use it because of 5 gig cap,and if white-space has a small cap i wont use it either

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by anon12 :

we will just have to wait and see wont we.
No, I don't want to see free TV ruined, which is what will happen.
i can use a cell phone,and evdo,but choose not to use it because of 5 gig cap,and if white-space has a small cap i wont use it either.
It WILL have a low cap or other severe limits, it MUST due to bandwidth limitation. It will have less bandwidth available per customer than EVDO does. If you can get EVDO, you don't need WSDs. Beg for WiMax instead, it's better than either one and you'll get it faster. Don't destroy everyone's free TV just to get another, lamer EVDO.

anon12
@direcpc.com

anon12

Anon

Re: You have got to be kidding me... right?

said by MrMoody:

said by anon12 :

we will just have to wait and see wont we.
No, I don't want to see free TV ruined, which is what will happen.
i can use a cell phone,and evdo,but choose not to use it because of 5 gig cap,and if white-space has a small cap i wont use it either.
It WILL have a low cap or other severe limits, it MUST due to bandwidth limitation. It will have less bandwidth available per customer than EVDO does. If you can get EVDO, you don't need WSDs. Beg for WiMax instead, it's better than either one and you'll get it faster. Don't destroy everyone's free TV just to get another, lamer EVDO.
OH i would love to see wimax in my area,but that's not going to happen either.i really don't care if it has a small cap if its cheap and don't charge overage prices that's the main thing to me.

I cant pay 60.00 a month for internet then have to worry about paying extra for going over allotted bandwidth.I just want a decent priced connection,and decent speed.IM not convinced that wsd will destroy tv anyway maybe will cause some interference that can be worked out,but not destroy as you say
jameswade
join:2001-12-09
Hot Springs, NC

jameswade

Member

Given a choice between Internet access and Over the Air TV?

I live in a rural area with no DSL, no cable, only 21 Kbps dialup (if that).

I get my Internet access via cell site by putting up a large yagi on the roof, pointing it the wrong direction to get a bounce off a nearby mountain, and run it through a three watt amplifier. And then it doesn't work that well, costs $60 per month and is capped at five GB.

I get the local TV channels via DirecTV - I can't get analog or digital TV channels here.

So, given a choice I'll take the white spaces!

I'm not at all convinced that using the empty channels will in any way harm DTV reception. At any rate 6 Mhz "guard bands" is a colossal waste of spectrum, especially for commercial interests and such generally poor programming.

anjorusso
@nychhc.org

anjorusso

Anon

white space for all

all those dummies who think it will interfere with TV transmission...guesss what?!! you can watch TV over the internet...so who careS?!! internet is definitely more important than TV anyway...majority of the people who were addicted to TV are now addicted to internet....and anyway...it's so much more than just surfing porn or using it for voip...it's about remote education, emergency communication and new internet applications that our minds have not been able to fathom yet...so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please

anon12
@charter.com

anon12

Anon

Re: white space for all

said by anjorusso :

all those dummies who think it will interfere with TV transmission...guesss what?!! you can watch TV over the internet...so who careS?!! internet is definitely more important than TV anyway...majority of the people who were addicted to TV are now addicted to internet....and anyway...it's so much more than just surfing porn or using it for voip...it's about remote education, emergency communication and new internet applications that our minds have not been able to fathom yet...so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please
yea if they want tv then pay for it like most Americans do already.that is if interferes with ota programming in which i don't think it will anyway
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to anjorusso

Member

to anjorusso
said by anjorusso :

so whoever opposes white space approval...shut the F up please
Judging by your attitude it would be wrong for me and other unlicensed mobile WSD opponents to shut up or to paraphrase Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

MalibuMaxx
Premium Member
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN

MalibuMaxx

Premium Member

I pay... but what about Grandpa....

Its not the issue of weather or not I pay for cable or not... I do... or did you not see my Comcast Cable review. I have a DTV and I have boxes for all my T.V.'s. However it is a PROVEN fact that the drop off on Digital OTA is much greater than analog. End of story.

I have the Second biggest outdoor T.V. antenna Radio Shack makes as well as it being amplified (30 db gain i think...). I can't wait for repeaters to come down in price and widely available so I can swap to one of those instead of my amp. However, I still recieve breakup of my H.D. channels from OTA digital. btw im only 100 ish miles away from the broadcast towers... if that.

It doesnt matter to me I have cable too. I do think OTA is clearer when it comes in but a channel I could get in on analog flawless (Cheannel 7 Chicago) I can only get it only so well.

I feel sorry for those who dont have the infrastructure in place like I do (i.e. older folks) That dont understand whats going on when they dont have a picture in feb. Also now the fact that they are even remotely thinking of implementing these white space devices that could interfere with OTA picture... why not just get rid of OTA to begin with... if its such an interferance to the FCC.

These devices that are going to make whitespace broadband are only going to give urban areas internet anyway... not rural because of the backhaul it would need.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Free TV is coming back

In big cities you can get dozens of digital TV streams free for the taking; all you need is an antenna and a DTV receiver. People are dropping cable and satellite and going back to the antenna. The pictures and sound are better and you don't have to pay anybody.

These White Space Devices are a threat to over-the-air TV because they assume the TV receivers have laboratory grade receivers, when if fact the receivers are very cheaply made. If the FCC wasn't a total tool of big business they might have anticipated the need for minimum receiver performance standards. Once again "deregulation" ruins life for many while increasing the profit margins of a very few.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

1 edit

Guspaz

MVM

Re: Free TV is coming back

I live in an apartment smack dab in the middle of the downtown core of Montreal. I get a grand total of one analog English station (CTV) with decent quality (and only one or two French) out of the three major networks.

There is only one English digital channel in Montreal (CBC), but I get zero reception on any of the digital channels in any language.

This despite the fact that the greater Montreal area has a population of 3.6 million people.

If the broadcasters aren't going to bother building decent transmitters in decent locations, then they can get the hell out of the way and make room for wireless broadband technology. The only reason I get CTV is because their broadcast power is SEVERAL TIMES higher than any other station. But even they don't bother with digital.

It doesn't look like digital television is going to go anywhere for years, and the analog situation shows no sign of improvement.

What I'd like, in the future (although it'll never happen), is for all telecommunication services (be it radio, television, telephone, everything) to go over the net, and the entire (and I do mean entire) wireless spectrum to be devoted to a set of non-interfering networks run over high-power UWB (which uses far less power than a cellphone to get multi-kilometer ranges). Instead of buying chunks of the spectrum, companies would buy percentage of overall bandwidth via the timeshare; when you've got a pervasive network with excellent penetration and many gigabits of bandwidth, so many problems go away.

It's a pipedream, but it'd solve so many problems. Content or service providers could provision any sort of service to any customer. They could either directly buy bandwidth (and by this I mean a percentage of time) from the government, or take a cheaper solution and just go over the public net and let people get service through one of the mobile broadband providers that would crop up.

This is all probably incredibly unrealistic, but the possibilities of just making everything UWB and completely ignoring any possible interference issues would be amazing. Heck, UWB could even do so much more than it does now with minimal interference if the telecommunication regulatory bodies weren't so damned paranoid.

</offtopic_rant>
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to DavePR

Member

to DavePR
said by DavePR:

If the FCC wasn't a total tool of big business they might have anticipated the need for minimum receiver performance standards.
They did but only the NTIA approved converter boxes are required (voluntary enforcement) to meet them and the FCC still assumes everyone has a 30' high outdoor antenna.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Free TV is coming back

I wasn't talking about the $50 boxes; I'm talking about the $3,000 widescreen TVs. The people who build these TVs say the FCC is making a big mistake, because they know their tuners suck.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Sorry but

The White space devices would interfere with Analog OTA NOT Digital OTA

differant frequencies

the bands that analog OTA used were sold off already (I think 1 more set might still not be sold yet)

sure it'll mess with Analog OTA but isn't even related to D OTA
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

2 edits

Sammer

Member

Re: Sorry but

White Space Devices are designed to operate on channels 21-36, 38-51 and are related to OTA digital reception. They will definitely not work on channels 52-69 that were auctioned off because beginning Feb. 18th those can no longer be white spaces.

Gtom
@ius.edu

Gtom

Anon

Internet is more important than TV

Remind me why we still need broadcast TV?

Broadcast TV only allows for.... TV. That's it. And only a few companies can participate.

Internet allows for:
TV
Movies
Radio
Websites
Commerce
Education
Research
Communication (including VoIP)
Software (Google Docs, Evernote)
Plus all those other things we have yet to discover.
Everyone can participate.

When it comes to the benefits to humanity, the internet wins!
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

1 edit

Sammer

Member

Re: Internet is more important than TV

said by Gtom :

Remind me why we still need broadcast TV?

Broadcast TV only allows for.... TV. That's it. And only a few companies can participate.

Internet allows for:
PRON
Everyone can participate.

When it comes to the benefits to humanity, the internet wins!
sarcasm off

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR to Gtom

Member

to Gtom
The internet fails miserably during a disaster. The internet doesn't have news cruisers or helicopters. The internet is anti-global-village.

The internet cannot deliver HDTV to 110,000,000 homes at the same time.

spitwater
@direcpc.com

spitwater

Anon

well

if its low latency, stays connected most of the time, 500-1000kbps then ill take it.

must be cheaper to install in rural areas then dsl (which is the dumbest technology anyway)

anjorusso
@nychhc.org

anjorusso

Anon

Re: well

hmm...are you nuts? its going to be at between 10 and 80mbits or something like that!!!
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: well

No he's not nuts, it might reach 50 mbps under ideal conditions but it definitely will drop below 1 mbps under poor (such as congested RF urban) conditions.