NAB Gets Network Help In Fighting White Space Broadband Fight heats up ahead of November 4 FCC vote... On the heels of an FCC report that suggested white space broadband was feasible, the National Association Of Broadcasters is kicking their opposition to white space broadband into overdrive. NAB has already stated the FCC is reading their own report incorrectly, and have now recruited the help ABC, CBS and NBC. The networks jointly filed their complaints (pdf) with the FCC, asking the agency to delay a vote on the new technology, which could provide a new wireless broadband (and TV delivery) option. The filing gets a little testy: Certain white spaces proponents have made no secret of their antipathy – indeed, hostility – towards the public’s television service. They disregard the fact that television broadcasting provides the public – all the public – with important news programming, emergency information and disaster coverage, and other critical services. They're of course talking about the Wireless Innovation Alliance, a coalition of consumer advocacy groups and companies such as Microsoft, Dell, Google and Intel -- all of whom would love a new delivery pipe and the resulting ad and hardware revenue. Google co-founder Larry Page has dubbed the technology "Wi-Fi on steroids," and has declared that he's "100 percent confident" that white space broadband is inevitable. Both NAB (see " Interference Zones") and the WIA (see " Free The Airwaves") have been spending plenty on a very public fight.
|
  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
1 edit | Broadband quote:
Larry Page has dubbed the technology "Wi-Fi on steroids,"
An apt comparison. I do NOT want an even bigger WiFi Wild West in the TV bands.
quote:
and has declared that he's "100 percent confident" that white space broadband is inevitable.
That depends on how you define "broadband." If you define it as, "portable walled garden with ads" and mean it will only be available in certain urban areas, then yes. | |
| Reviews:
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Issues (FCC interested in what?) I do want a wireless free broadband but I think how this is going to be implemented is a mistake... It should not have the possiblity of interfering with our television and from what I understand from the report it CAN cause issues in this department. So I vote NO and thats what the FCC should realize as well... if they are in the best interest of the public like they say.
At the same time the digital transition is not completely in the best interest of the public as well (coverage issues)... I think everyone feels that the FCC isnt doing its job...
Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere with taxpayers money that they get... of course that won't happen... 
EDIT cleanup | |
|  | | | Re: Issues (FCC interested in what?) No, it won't interfere. Some of the companies doing the most complaining actually use the SAME type of wireless signal in other countries. Unless they're intentionally, continually, and knowingly interfering with the signals of other companies in those other countries the answer is this type of wireless signal will not interfere here any more than it does there. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Issues (FCC interested in what?) Most other countries use DVB-T rather than ATSC for digital television. There isn't enough room here to state why DVB-T withstands such interference better but suffice it to say it does. ATSC was chosen here because it is more energy efficient and it wasn't possible to broadcast HDTV over DVB-T back when ATSC was adopted although that is possible now with some limitations. | |
|
| MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by MalibuMaxx:Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere Why can't the WIA members set up free, ad-supported WiMax? Answer me that one.
WSDs won't get used for (real) broadband, they'll just flood the market, despite having no internet towers anywhere, and wind up as long-range, high-penetration WiFi radios in the TV band. Hackers who care nothing about TV will set up personal, high-powered, high-gain links, bypassing any channel blocks, on it and wipe out everything, including each other. It will be the CB of the digital age. In the TV band!
Picking up DTV cleanly is tough enough already without additional foreign signals nearby. Anyone who's tried knows this. One of the local channels, WRAL-DT, recently dropped temporarily to a lower antenna on the side of their tower so they could change frequency on the main transmitter for the changeover. This reduced their signal in my direction by about 30db (estimated). Their tower is 10.2 miles away, and line of sight. I can literally SEE the lights on the tower at night from my front porch.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of sufficient channel space (!), the FCC saw fit to assign an adjacent channel at the same location. As long as both were at the same effective power it was fine, but with one 30db down from the adjacent frequency NONE of my equipment will receive WRAL-DT at all any more, with my rooftop antenna.
If WSDs are close enough and have enough effective power (input power X antenna gain) they will wipe out not only the channel they're on, but any adjacent channel as well.
So how much bandwidth does this leave WSDs to use in TV markets, the ONLY place the "free broadband" has even a chance of being deployed? Damn little.
This whole idea is even worse than BPL.
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | said by MalibuMaxx:At the same time the digital transition is not completely in the best interest of the public as well (coverage issues)... I think everyone feels that the FCC isnt doing its job... Right now, I think if the FCC wants to provide a free public broadband then they need to launch Wi-Max towers everywhere with taxpayers money that they get... of course that won't happen... There is absolutely no way this will provide free or even inexpensive broadband in major market urban areas if the fixed base stations have to be on non-adjacent channels. Between additional digital translators to deal with those coverage issues as well as additional licensed low powers for the future ATSC mobile/handheld standard there will be very few UHF white spaces left in such areas and the WIA seems completely disinterested in the VHF frequencies. Did I mention the wireless telcos are willing to pay real money to license white spaces for backhaul. Don't forget those base stations will also need backhaul and that will probably only be available expensively from competitors. | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Do whatever it takes to stifle competition and innovation. USA the leader in the 20th Century.... (It's the 21st) | |
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Do whatever it takes I wish Kevin Martin would just hibernate until he gets replaced next year.
I mean what could we expect from the administration that gave is BPL?
Let's see... they tried to interfere with radio, let's mess up TV now.
It's pitiful. It would be laughable if Kevin Martin and his cronies weren't so completely technically incompetent. Lawyers make incredibly poor engineers. What the FCC needs is engineers. | |
|
 Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Why stop it? Hey, if it's do-able without interference, I'd say go for it.
I mean really.. Why is the NAB so damn scared of this? | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
4 edits | Re: Why stop it? Because they understand what is and isn't possible without interference and unlicensed WSDs bringing broadband utopia isn't possible. They are dealing with the same FCC that could have already brought inexpensive broadband to the millions of Americans that don't yet have it if the FCC had really wanted to. Note one statement in the networks complaint, "Rural broadband uses, possibly under a light licensing regime, which broadcasters have not opposed, could have been authorized earlier. Their authorization has been unjustifiably held up by linkage to possible authorization of unlicensed mobile and portable devices intended for use in congested urban areas (even though these latter uses could interfere with the fixed broadband uses)." | |
|
Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| If the NAB is fighting it... If the NAB is fighting it, be assured it's a good deal for the consumer.
They are SO pro incumbent broadcaster that it's sickening.
They bend over for TV broadcasters, while throwing their own radio mambers under the bus!
They SUCK! | |
| | Reviews:
·Charter
1 edit | Re: If the NAB is fighting it... Because it isn't doable without interference.
The magnitude of what the device would have to do makes it doing it impossible.
The footprint of a television signal, especially in the fringe reception areas, areas that viewers need because they are under served, makes reliable detection of these weak signals impossible by the white space devices.
Why doesn't the FCC just to the right thing, the thing that makes good engineering sense, and allocate some frequencies just for wireless? | |
| | | | | Re: If the NAB is fighting it... do you have proof that it isn't doable without interference? a link to the website with strong connections to NAB doesn't cut it. the whole damn point of the white space devices is to use the parts of the spectrum that aren't in use and never interfere with the TV signals. and btw, from what i've heard, the ATSC is fairly robust against interference, unless the pilot carrier is messed with. | |
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: If the NAB is fighting it... Obviously you didn't even read the complaint which is from the networks, the Association of Public Television Stations, and others. Some of the white space proponents have made it very clear that they consider this just a first step and what they are really after is all of channels 21-36, 38-51. In fact there won't be enough white spaces in some congested urban areas for this to work unless some television stations disappear. | |
|
| | Just another potential "pipe" What the NAB and its cohorts are saying is that because there exists the potential for interference in some places (especially interference with their members' profits), no one should be allowed to try it anywhere. All the FCC is saying is that it may be feasible to establish white space broadband in significantly large areas, certainly enough to take a closer look at the technology to do it. (Sorta like BPL, except you have some major players who want to pursue it, unlike the power companies, who mostly aren't interested at all.) Technology marches on. It would certainly make for a better emergency/lifeline network (a la EBS/EAS) than TV stations can offer. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
2 edits | Re: Just another potential "pipe" said by mod_wastrel:What the NAB and its cohorts are saying is that because there exists the potential for interference in some places (especially interference with their members' profits), no one should be allowed to try it anywhere. Your statement is completely untrue because the broadcasters (including the NAB) have made it very clear they support fixed (perhaps nominally licensed) white space devices in rural areas. | |
| | | | | Re: Just another potential "pipe" The fact remains that the NAB et al are trying to exert influence, even control, over something they do not own to the detriment of those that do own it, namely, the public. The only thing they've ever made clear is that they don't want anything to go forward which could lead to a lessening of their profits. | |
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
4 edits | Re: Just another potential "pipe" said by mod_wastrel:The fact remains that the NAB et al are trying to exert influence, even control, over something they do not own to the detriment of those that do own it, namely, the public. No, the fact is it's the WIA (led by Microsoft, Google, etc.) that are trying to exert influence, even control to obtain something they do not own for free to the detriment of the public who will lose free TV if the WIA has their way. Some of the WSD proponents have even admitted that is their ultimate goal out loud! | |
| | | | | | | Re: Just another potential "pipe" If commercial broadcast (and "cable") TV disappeared from the face of the Earth, then I'd rejoice... hundreds (thousands?) of channels and nothing on. BTW, it ain't "free".
FCC says, "OK, it works... let's take a closer look."
NAB says, "Oh, NO!... don't do that!"
Sorry, I'm with the FCC (stranger things have happened, though not often) and the WIA (ditto) here. | |
| | | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Just another potential "pipe" So you want to replace a broadcast system that has worked for years with a walled garden narrowcast system controlled by the likes of Microsoft. BTW Vista wouldn't be such a piece of crap if they hadn't thrown all the "trusted computing" junk in it in an attempt to lock up PCs and content. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just another potential "pipe" When it comes to broadcast TV, I "want" nothing--I'm not a TV watcher (whether broadcast or not); and I couldn't care less about Vista (specifically or Microsoft in general). Technology advances. The broadcast system either adapts or it doesn't. I'm simply in favor of new technologies being explored and investigated. There has to be incentive, and that's what the FCC vote is about--giving incentive to those who want to explore new technologies (yes, for their own benefit, too). If the broadcast system wants to survive at all, then it's going to have to adapt. Of course, actually having something worth watching might help. "White spaces" won't kill broadcast TV, but the continued loss of viewers due to lack of content and over-commercialization certainly might. As it is now, broadcast TV is of no value at all to me. | |
|
| | NAB against it The reason they're against a project like this is for is that it takes away a monopoly of media (however naive one might think that notion is)... it's like a person saying I'm setting up a club and get ready cause we've organized something similar before and there are dues and rules for membership that we've established in order to be retained by us... FCC doesn't G.A.S. is any individual idea is good enough as long as they are the gatekeepers. | |
|  DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| OTA TV Under Attack, Time to Fight Back JESSELL AT LARGE
OTA TV Under Attack, Time to Fight Back
By Harry A Jessell
TVNEWSDAY, Oct 24 2008, 11:59 AM ET
With one of those government coupons and $25, a poor family can buy a DTV converter box and can go right on watching broadcast TV for years to come.
For not a nickel more, they can stay on a first name basis with Judge Judy, Dr. Phil, Oprah, Alex, Elmo and Jay.
They can keep up with what's going in town by tuning in the local news once or twice a day.
They can get great seats for the World Series, the Super Bowl, the Oscars and the inauguration of the next president.
If they are immigrants, they can find a few channels (or at least a few programs) that speak their language, comforting them with images of the old country or introducing them to the new one.
And if danger approaches, they all know the regularly scheduled programming will be interrupted and a trusted and familiar face will appear to tell them what's going on, what to do and where to go.
Free, universal, over-the air television: It's an extraordinary service whose roots plunge nine decades deep into American history.
Yet, there are folks who believe that this service has absolutely no value. And what's frightening is that they now have the ear of the FCC.
Google, Microsoft and other well-heeled high-tech companies are pushing hard to get FCC permission to unleash countless unlicensed wireless devices into the broadcast spectrum that could disrupt the over-the-air service and lead to its eventual demise.
And that is apparently what they are trying to do. They don't want to share the broadcast spectrum as they are telling the FCC commissioners. They want it all.
"Take TV off the air," declared Michael Calabrese at a conference at Google's Silicon Valley headquarters earlier this week.
Calabrese is one of the chief advocates for opening up broadcasting's so-called white spaces for unlicensed devices as director of the New American Foundation's Wireless Future Program. The NAF is a shill for the high-tech industry.
According to a report in Communications Daily, Calabrese argued for converting all TV broadcast spectrum to wireless broadband uses and forcing today's millions of over-the-air viewers to cable, satellite or the Internet for TV.
Calabrese also candidly admitted that once the FCC opens the gates to the white spaces, the wireless interlopers would begin pressing for more transmitting power.
The FCC has proposed limiting wireless devices in white spaces to 40 milliwatts, but "we're going to push that up over time," he said.
Mark McHenry, CEO of Shared Spectrum Co., another proponent at the conference, concurred. "The FCC is going to start conservatively, but we're going to wear them down. In a few years, we're going to be at 10 watts all over the place."
Calabrese and McHenry have given it away: The white spaces proceeding is a spectrum grab and it must be stopped.
For broadcasters, the first order of business now is to convince three of the FCC commissioners not to go along with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's plan to unloose unlicensed users in the broadcast white spaces.
It will not be easy. Martin has put the proposal on the Nov. 4 agenda and my latest intelligence is that he seems to have both Democrats, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, on board. That's all he needs at the five-person agency.
But broadcasters still have a chance to turn it around if they make the rights arguments.
Permitting unlicensed devices into white space will wreak havoc in the band, disrupting reception for the millions of American who still receive TV off the air. Many of these people cannot afford to subscribe to cable and satellite and owning a computer is still way beyond their reach.
The white space proponents' claim that they can equip devices with sensors that will prevent them from interfering with TV signals in unproven. In fact, a preponderance of the evidence that has piled up at the FCC indicates that they won't be able to do the job.
This crucial sensing technology is what they call vaporware in computer circles. It's a jumble of code and breadboard circuitry high-tech companies throw out there hoping someday to make it work.
"Let smart radios operate around the dinosaurs," said big-talking Calabrese at the Google conference, blithely dismissing and dissing every broadcaster in the country.
Let us see one smart radio that actually works. Hey, and while you're at it Microsoft, how about an operating system that doesn't crash.
Cable and satellite are no substitute for broadcasting. Underlying the white spaces assault as Calabrese made clear is the notion that broadcast spectrum is being wasted on broadcasting.
It's just not true. In natural or man-made disasters, when the power goes out and cable lines are knocked down, broadcasting is what tends to survive and provide service to all.
If broadcasting didn't exist, the Department of Homeland Security would have to invent it and is there anybody who doesn't believe the feds would screw it up?
Broadcasting is free. When it comes time for the forced migration of over-the-air viewers to cable and satellite, Calabrese expects the government to pick up the bill and put millions of family on TV welfare. But what's another several billion dollars a year if it keeps Silicon Valley prospering?
Here's another great thing about over-the-air TV in our age of vanishing privacy. You can watch it without it watching you. As soon as you get wired up to anything, some computer somewhere will start recording everything you do. That's kind of creepy.
If the unlicensed devices do cause interference and force people to take refuge in cable and satellite, it undermines the broadcasting business, robbing it of one of its key competitive advantage over cable. Without that edge, TV stations will suffer and there will be less news, less public service.
The TV spectrum invasion may also hobble broadcasters' ability to offer mobile services, which may turn out to be another free service to the public, an alternative to costly cell phone video services.
If you don't think ill-advised FCC policy can destroy broadcast TV, take a look at what agency did to AM radio, the original electronic medium. By jamming more and more stations into the AM band and failing to protect it from interference over the years, the FCC has marginalized the service.
That's really too bad. You want to talk about a lifeline service. You can build an AM radio with a handful of wire, a razor blade, a safety pin and a pencil. I bet you can't access the Internet with the stuff in your kitchen junk drawer.
Broadcasters are losing the white spaces battle right now, despite a full-court press in Washington led by the NAB and MSTV and aided by all the lobbies of the broadcast networks.
To kill this proposal or at least postpone action, it's going to take every broadcast group executive and station GM e-mailing their representatives and senators as well as each of the commissioners. I'm sure the NAB has sent them talking points and I've just supplied a few more.
I would target the Democrats, who seem to in the thrall of Silicon Valley on this issue. That's ironic, isn't it? How can the Democratic Party callously treat the most democratic of all media?
So, if you're a broadcaster or just somebody who cares about broadcasting and doesn't want to drive the wedge deeper between the media haves and have nots, stop reading and start writing.
Knock out a couple of e-mails before you go home this evening.
Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsday. You can contact him at hajessell@tvnewsday.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2008 TV Newsday, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article can be found online at: »www.tvnewsday.comhttp://www.tvne···daily.6/.
Please visit »www.tvnewsday.com/ for more on this and other breaking news concerning the TV broadcasting industry. | |
|
| |
|
|
