said by Eat Me :

What happens when people hack/mod these devices for "more range" or to defeat the "busy detection" features?

Their attitude will be something like:

"The airwaves are free, the people own them." (false, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC)

"Nobody watches TV from a rabbit ears anymore" (false, millions of Americans watch TV from an antenna)

"The TV stations are powerful, I won't interfere with them." (false, if you're in a fringe area like me, you'll understand)

"I don't care about people watching TV." (wow, with that attitude why don't you just go around killing puppies?)

etc etc

So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.

said by BF69 :

So because someone may use a device ilelgally it should be baned? People drive drunk so using your logic cars should be banned.

said by Bit :

You certainly have widespread abuse of vehicles, from drunk driving as previously mentioned to speeding, to running red lights. By your logic they should be banned because of widespread abuse and this abuse results in 10,000's of deaths every year.

said by Eat Me :

No, it's because of the potential for widespread abuse, which is just one concern out of many.

My main concern is how it affects TV reception in fringe areas.

White space devices are like BPL. They may sound like a good idea, but in reality they are going to cause much more problems than they solve.

said by Eat Me :

In other "free" bands such as 2.4GHz and 900MHz it is literally filthy as a sewer with spectrum pollution. The difference between those spaces and white space devices is that white space devices broadcast on actual TV channels, versus 900MHz and 2.4GHz where there isn't much of anything important.

said by BF69 :

It's NOTHING like BPL which by the way could have been futher along except a group of whiny little ham bitches that think it's 1929.

said by Eat Me :

So this is why I think the NAB is 100% right. Leave the broadcasting to people like TV transmission engineers who actually have a clue about resolving interference problems, and station licensees who are accountable to the FCC.

said by BF69 :

which channels? specifically which MHz range is this supposedly going to affect? Do you even know?

said by rawwhide :

Do you work for NAB or just misinformed?

said by Bit :

Please...this isn't about interference. This is about an industry lobby not wanting new competitors. The reason they're bitching about this is the same reason they spent millions lobbying against the satellite radio merger.

They don't give two squirts of piss about "fringe" folks. They only concerned with stopping new competition for their membership.

Meanwhile I live and work in densely populated areas and don't suffer in the slightest from so-called sewer-like "spectrum" pollution with my 900MHz, 2.4GHz or 5GHz devices.

said by Eat Me :

As a current sat radio customer (XM), I'd say that the merger has made things a lot worse. =

said by Eat Me :

Sure I do. And I know exactly how to render these devices ineffective.

I'm sure just like cell phone jammers someone will just make a WSD jammer (it's not that hard) to emit a signal just long enough to render WSD devices in the area ineffective.