Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to wvcaver
Re: Cable CO. ??
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. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | They already got provisions for headend protection. They are now claiming potential interference to equipment out in the 'hood.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
1 edit | reply to Eat Me
said by Eat Me :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
·Bresnan Online
| ..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] |
|
