nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| FCC is incompetent
The FCC is no longer competent to do anything technical. In cases where it does display technical competence, politics intrudes to change or surpress the results, depending on the outcome desired.
FCC decisions aren't based on technical grounds and haven't been for years. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| Those of us who are Ham Radio operators have know this for years. The FCC used to be run by engineers now it is political hacks, just like everyone else in political position in Washington DC,they are there to feather their own nests. By the way DC has come to mean "Da Cash" .
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Links for more information...
Since the ipdemocracy article gave no detail about the claim of the test being rigged, which makes it sound like sour grapes on google's part, here is a bit more information about google's complaints with the test.
»googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/···ces.html
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20038596
Specifically they claim microphone operators were themselves improperly transmitting on tv spectrum, in violation of fcc rules.
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| A petition and why google believes this will be political...
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ing.html
quote:
The entire campaign is of interest because the white spaces broadband issue has been brewing for years, but until now backers have largely said, "Let the science decide!" Since the main objection raised by TV broadcasters and wireless microphone makers is interference, the pro-white spaces alliance (represented by groups like the Wireless Innovation Alliance) have said that the issue should be decided by the nonpartisan Office of Engineering Technology at the FCC, which has been testing the devices.
But it's becoming increasingly clear to the various parties we have spoken with on the issue that the OET won't issue a "yes/no" recommendation. With the second wave of testing now complete and the OET report apparently being drafted, most parties are convinced that it will offer maximum wiggle room to the commissioners and fodder for both sides.
The decision will come down to a nontechnical, political choice (how much likelihood of noninterference do we need to approve this?) rather than a simple binary question (will this interfere or won't it?). That means the campaign for and against white spaces will become explicitly political rather than technical in the next few months.
The petition is here:
»www.freetheairwaves.com/takeAction.html |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| White Spaces = bad idea
All you need is a nearby white space device operating on a channel adjacent to the TV channel you want to watch and you'll lose the TV channel. If you have any amplification in your system prior to the TV, a nearby white space device _anywhere_ in the band can wipe out _all_ your channels. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Guaranteed to interfere!
You want science to decide then it is guaranteed that these cheap made in China transmitters that are more powerful and have greater range than wireless microphones will interfere with someone's TV reception somewhere. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Links for more information...
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are. And how do they know it didn't cause problems? Did they ask? Would the average person complain to the FCC if his digital TV was blocking or glitching for a few minutes during the day? Would they have any clue why it happened if they were even home to see it? That's the problem with digital vs. analog interference. With an analog TV signal, interference is obviously interference. With digital, it's indistinguishable from any other reception error.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
Yes, and the distance between neighboring houses is much smaller than the distance between a football stadium and any house.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
|  Ummm, what?
said by Article :
As a result, the white spaces devices naturally could not detect the microphone signals, as they were hidden by the much more powerful TV signals. So, if the microphones were transmitting on top of active, powerful TV signals ... why in the hell were the whitespace devices transmitting there too? Shouldn't they have avoided the frequencies altogether since there were TV signals present?
Am I misunderstanding something? (Which is entirely possible.)
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Links for more information...
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
...
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
wireless microphones are used by the NFL, megachurches and many other organizations that use them without obtaining licenses. This large group of wireless mic users have been getting away with this because there weren't any problems. Now all of a sudden they are worried about white space devices causing them problems!
»www.publicknowledge.org/node/1665
Briefly, the vast majority of wireless microphone users have no right to use the broadcast white spaces. While the number of wireless microphone users may exceed 1 million, only 952 users have actually licensed systems. In theory, the FCC should be sending out SWAT teams and busting every Broadway theater, business conference center, and megachurch that filed in the white spaces proceeding and confessed to a federal felony. But the reality is more complicated, especially as most of these folks have no clue that they are spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on systems that make them “radio pirates” subject to confiscation of equipment and a fine of $11,000 per violation per day. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to Sammer
Re: Guaranteed to interfere!
"In addition, the utilized TV channels often contained multiple microphones, and microphones at
FedEx Field transmitted at levels of up to 250 mW. In other words, total channel transmit power
was often much greater than the 100 mW maximum possible transmit power proposed by the
Coalition for personal/portable white space devices."
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20038596 |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
Re: Ummm, what?
one purpose of the test was to detect if ANY "licensed" device (in addition to a TV station) was using a white space frequency and then stay away from that frequency.
one complaint from the "white space deniers" was that the devices didn't detect all of the wireless microphones, but this was because the microphones themselves were using the same frequency as a TV channel (but apparently not causing any problem for TV reception) and thus hidden in the stronger TV signal (which was detected, but identified as being used by a TV channel, not a wireless mic).
As my post above points out however, only about 0.1% of wireless mics are licensed for use. It appears to be OK to be a "rogue" wireless microphone user, but not a licensed white space device user. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
|  said by nasadude  :one purpose of the test was to detect if ANY "licensed" device (in addition to a TV station) was using a white space frequency and then stay away from that frequency. one complaint from the "white space deniers" was that the devices didn't detect all of the wireless microphones, but this was because the microphones themselves were using the same frequency as a TV channel (but apparently not causing any problem for TV reception) and thus hidden in the stronger TV signal (which was detected, but identified as being used by a TV channel, not a wireless mic). As my post above points out however, only about 0.1% of wireless mics are licensed for use. It appears to be OK to be a "rogue" wireless microphone user, but not a licensed white space device user. Now that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the translation.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :one complaint from the "white space deniers" was that the devices didn't detect all of the wireless microphones, but this was because the microphones themselves were using the same frequency as a TV channel (but apparently not causing any problem for TV reception) and thus hidden in the stronger TV signal (which was detected, but identified as being used by a TV channel, not a wireless mic). This doesn't make any sense. Why would the whitespace device be required to determine whether a signal is TV or a wireless mic? It wouldn't. Someone is full of crap. I want to see the actual test results.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Links for more information...
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
Specifically they claim microphone operators were themselves improperly transmitting on tv spectrum, in violation of fcc rules.
They also claim that the fact that this was going on, at higher power levels then proposed wireless devices, and didn't cause interference problems with local residents is an indication of how overblown the concerns are.
The broadcast industry response is that the large number of wireless devices that will likely be involved is much more significant than a small number of microphones managed by a limited number of people.
I have to agree with the broadcasters here. A couple microphones doesn't present the kind of threat that thousands of unlicensed devices would create.
And nowhere does Page or anyone else prove they won't cause interference. The FCC's test say they will. All that Page and the Coalition can say is that allow the new service and the problems will be worked out later.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Guaranteed to interfere!
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
FedEx Field transmitted at levels of up to 250 mW. In other words, total channel transmit power
was often much greater than the 100 mW maximum possible transmit power proposed by the
Coalition for personal/portable white space devices." This just goes to show the integrity of the coalition, they are sensationalizing and playing on people's ignorance. The difference between 250 and 100 mW is 4 dB, this is only a SMALL difference, not "much greater."
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :"In addition, the utilized TV channels often contained multiple microphones, and microphones at FedEx Field transmitted at levels of up to 250 mW. In other words, total channel transmit power was often much greater than the 100 mW maximum possible transmit power proposed by the Coalition for personal/portable white space devices." » fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20038596 The whole point of white space devices is that there will be multiples of them (probably many more than wireless microphones) and that they will have much greater range than WiFi devices. Besides most people don't live next door to FedEx Field while many will be in close proximity to someone using the internet. The ATSC digital television standard that became the law of the land in 1996 was not designed to co-exist with the proposed white space devices. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to MrMoody
Re: Ummm, what?
Because wireless mic manufacturers and maybe the NFL bitched (er, filed a comment) to the FCC that white spaces devices would interfere with the use of wireless mics and the white space devices had to also avoid the freqs in the 700Mhz band the mics were using (even though most of them are "illegal" users).
this gives a good overview of this particular issue
»www.wetmachine.com/item/1284 |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to MrMoody
We are all making a lot of assumptions here.
"why in the hell were the whitespace devices transmitting there too?"
Firstly we don't know that this was happening.
I don't know any more about the details of the test than most others here. The test, according to page was specifically intended:
" ... to assess whether white space device prototypes could sense the presence of wireless microphone signals." not whether they could sense any signal.
I'm speculating as well but this suggests that specific mechanisms were in place to alter the transmitting behavior of microphones in the area to see if the device detected this. If the device was picking up other signals then it would have trouble detecting this changing behavior wouldn't it?
Again I don't know how the test was structured, but presumably google does. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :Because wireless mic manufacturers and maybe the NFL bitched (er, filed a comment) to the FCC that white spaces devices would interfere with the use of wireless mics and the white space devices had to also avoid the freqs in the 700Mhz band the mics were using (even though most of them are "illegal" users). OK, but it still doesn't make sense. The WSD should avoid a frequency in use. A mic is using the same frequency as a TV channel. The WSD should avoid that frequency in either case. What's the problem? Are they saying it couldn't detect the frequency in use because two sources are transmitting on it? If so, that's THEIR problem.
That page you point to is a highly biased opinion piece whose point is that Shure is influencing the testing, with little evidence to back it up. Again the false claim is made that the mics are a much more powerful signal than the WSDs would be. Read the first comment for some debunking.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Links for more information...
In all fairness BBR should attach a disclaimer to your avatar stating that you may have been an employee of and may still be plus you have a major financial interest in the bottom line of the Teleco's and you couldn't care less for the consumer or those of us who are tired of being overcharged for crappy service. You're an industry hack. There's nothing wrong with that except you attempt to come across as someone who is non biased but people who have been reading and participating here for years know the difference. Did it ever occur to you that we the consumer would like to have a third choice? I would dump TWC in a minute if this was available. |
|
