 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | FUBAR Yes in more fringe areas where OTA broadcast won't be listed because their signals don't supposedly exist some morons will undoubtly use a non-vacant channel for thier white space internet service and screw OTA TV for everyone in the area. Interference complaints will either be ignored by the FCC or take years to resolve.
There is no diubt that the FCC is determined to make sure everyone pays for TV without "officially" killing off OTA.
Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
2 edits | Agree. The database will lag the real world. How do you access a database, without activating the modem to update the database? Unlicensed TVWS devices will be causing interference. They will be mobile, which means no way to triangulate on interference causing devices. No point of contact. No accountability. This is just going to be the 2.4GHz spectrum, with all its problems, on a 10 times larger slice of spectrum. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
2 edits | reply to BF69
Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference.
Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff.
However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to BF69
said by BF69:Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways? This white space nonsense will die. As I suggest a few days ago, this whole white space thing is a waste of time and only serves to cause issues for you "fringers" in the short term and become pointless in the longer term as the spectrum is sold off for real wireless network access. |
|
|
|
| reply to davidhoffman
Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability.
Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory.
Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential. |
|
| said by cornelius785:Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability. Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory. Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential. Try again. The FCC's best simulations can never reflect the real world.
Longley-Rice maps are an approximation at best. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference. Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff. However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past. yes there are fringe areas, I live in one. I know what I can and can't get. I know quite bit on this topic. There are some channels I can only get in at night. So these channel won't show up in any database. Ok so now some idiot and his whitespace devices can screw me getting that station in at all. |
|
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past. A "community video distribution network" is called cable TV. |
|
