how-to block ads
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Sign of lacking confidence in one's argument...
is when people start throwing out huge numbers of claims and arguments in the hope that something will stick and that sheer quantity will win out:)
It's shared, speeds will be crap
It will only help urban markets, not rural users.
It will be too expensive, the economics don't work out.
as well as the original claims about interference, which are now becoming "it will wreck cable, dsl, tv, much of radio"
If these claims are even half true then one wonders why opponents are so mobilized against this. A technology that is such an obvious failure is never going to go anywhere and the issue is moot. One wonders if they really believe what they say, given that they seem to simultaneously tell us that it will never work, yet seem to fear that it will and expend energy fighting it. Does anyone really believe that commercial roll out will go forward or that the fcc will allow deployment if it wrecks so much present infrastructure, interfering with dsl, cable ,tv?
No matter how much you want to argue corruption, these people aren't that stupid.
I would also like to address a couple of other points.
1. That most of the comments received were against. This isn't uncommon and it doesn't really prove much. It is generally those who feel that they will be adversely affected who mobilize for these things. The general public isn't interested one way or the other, until a saleable product that affects them is available. These issues aren't sexy issues that excite the majority of human beings.
2. That we should focus on getting cable and especially dsl to expand. I'm not opposed to this, but one shouldn't underestimate the effect of having a THIRD wireline capability into the home. Considering the long term market environment, having a third player and having full dsl coverage are not at all comparable.
---
Again, we don't really know yet. There should be analysis of interference by an INDEPENDENT third party with no agenda to push.
What we will probably find is that there will be some increased interference, but not the massive confusion predicted. Then there will be endless debates and fighting about what side effects are tolerable/reasonable and what aren't. These issues will become less compelling as the technology matures.
Spectrum interference is not really a "law of nature".
Interference is not all or nothing, noise free environment or complete confusion.
It involves physical laws certainly, but also social questions and design questions, questions of the design and capabilities of the receivers, present reasonable cost computational power, expectations, what is a tolerable level of interference, what is a tolerable rate of error in the system.
Most of these variables are susceptible to human transformation. These are not hard and fast questions of physical laws but involve social negotiation and are affected by technological change in human systems. | |
zentec
join:2002-01-05
Monroe, MI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| [quote]...
"Spectrum interference is not really a "law of nature".
Interference is not all or nothing, noise free environment or complete confusion.
It involves physical laws certainly, but also social questions and design questions, questions of the design and capabilities of the receivers, present reasonable cost computational power, expectations, what is a tolerable level of interference, what is a tolerable rate of error in the system."
[end quote]...
As someone that has designed RF receivers, I seem to remember the laws being fairly immutable. And it's pretty much game over as far as the receiver is concerned when the desired signal and interfering signal close within a couple db of one another.
There is no mitigating receiver design consideration when it comes to interference to the fundamental by a signal on the same frequency. They just mix in the front-end of the receiver and that is all she wrote.
I happen to agree that there are instances when a tolerable level of interference exists. Channelized or shared-repeater situations come to mind where at any given point, you may interfere with other users. But let's be realistic here, PLC interferes with vast numbers of users in different radio services across huge swaths of spectrum.
If some new technology came to light that allowed 747's to fly cross country on 100 gallons of fuel, people would be all over it as a great economic benefit. But do you really think they'd be all that happy if the stipulation of that technology is that the aircraft had to fly at 900 feet above the ground? The planes would cause immense noise pollution over huge areas of the country and no where could you move to escape it. Sure, great economic benefit to the airline industry and the economy as a whole. But a seriously expensive trade unless you happen to be totally deaf.
A tad-bit of hyperbole, but I think it demonstrates the basis of the objections. | |
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to asdfdfdf
Not saying speeds will be crap because it is shared, I am saying speeds will not be a reason to switch from cable or DSL. One "vision" some seem to have is that this is a replacement technology for DSL or Cable, it is not.
I do not think it will be seen as much in rural areas especially in the US. Deployment costs too much and power companies like to make money (just as any business does). The economics do not work out, that is a valid statement.
I do not think it will cause too many problems for DSL but I do think it will be visible to cable systems. I think the cable companies are safer than the power companies as far as the signal integrity. If anything the power company has more to fear when it comes to ingress noise.
Nope, these issues aren't sexy issues that excite the majority of human beings. But it is strange that the majority of a small portion of the human beings interested are against the wide-scale deployment. I am not really too sure that there are too many other things that are "sexy" other than women, interesting some of the things people find sexy though.
Noise exists everywhere so I think it is a law of nature. Blasting man-made high power signal over a large piece of metal to me is not a wise use of spectrum.
The questions at hand are not new un-answered questions. The situation being presented has a predictable outcome with greed overpowering intelligent design. The best human transformation would be the elimination of money as a factor in the design process. I do not think the designers are stupid people but I question there intentions. Sometimes an overwhelming desire to actually "do it" makes for a product that tosses aside the existing "social questions?", better yet regard for technology that is more sound, and just assumes that they can deploy rude technology because they have a large drive to "do it". | |
|
