'White Space' & DTV topic - Page 4 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > HDTV > HDTV Technical > 'White Space' & DTV topic

HDTV Technical

Trip in VA's Avatar Trip in VA
08:48 AM Liked: 67
post #91 of 249
10-31-2008 | Posts: 14,467
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Well that's good news. I hope I have equally good results if my neighbor starts broadcasting WSD data next-to channel 11.

Slashdot has posted yet another article about the White Space Device agenda, this time in favor of WSDs:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../10/31/1233218

I had 4 mod points, I used all of them on anti-WSD posts in that thread.

- Trip
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
12:44 AM Liked: 10
post #92 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Rules View Post

I wouldn't think those closeby WSD's would create a problem with the proper rooftop antenna system, good quality coax cable with good connections, and a UVSJ to filter out of band signals.

That is probably true unless that rooftop antenna is amplified or the WSD relies only on signal sensing and transmits from what is known as a hidden node and of course a UVSF won't filter out WSDs because they're in-band. The WSDs that rely only on signal sensing (not geo-location) have a margin of error of about 30db. The difference between the reception sensitivity of a 30' high amplified outdoor antenna at the same location as a WSD indoors in a hidden node with its tiny antenna could exceed 60db. Geo-location isn't perfect either because it depends on a well maintained current database that the WSD can only consult once it is actually connected to the internet. We also don't know if the database will contain a safety margin beyond the broadcast contours reported to the FCC even though a few viewers do receive stations beyond their contour.
holl_ands's Avatar holl_ands
01:21 AM Liked: 69
post #93 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 3,757
Joined: Jun 2004
Big problem: GPS geo-location doesn't work indoors.
And reportedly 75 percent of TV viewers use indoor antennas....

One of the WSD proposals is to broadcast the "occupied" channel list
via embedded data on DTV (but indoor WSD may not receive!!!).
So how do they expect to PAY for the infrastructure to collect, manage
and DISTRIBUTE this information....which will be very dependent on
WHERE the WSD is in each DMA (or between multiple, overlapping DMAs).

And broadcasters don't want to trust (and rely on) some half-baked,
underfunded scheme (possibly mismanaged to their detriment) that is
embedded into the network broadband node devices....and what about
indoor/mobile devices that can't communicate with the local node???

If a free-for-all channel assignment scheme is ever approved, how would
multiple broadband service providers share a small number of channels???
If frequency agile devices are employed, how effective will their transmit
bandpass filters be (current technology employs fixed multi-pole filters).

Another problem: WSD couldn't find wireless microphones most of the time.

Detecting DTV occupancy was about as good as flipping a coin.
One of the WSD had the threshhold cranked over to maximize finding
an occupied DTV channel....but failed to find ANY unoccupied channels
to operate on. Channel sensing was an all around FAILURE...
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
01:17 PM Liked: 10
post #94 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

Big problem: GPS geo-location doesn't work indoors.
And reportedly 75 percent of TV viewers use indoor antennas....

And broadcasters don't want to trust (and rely on) some half-baked,
underfunded scheme (possibly mismanaged to their detriment) that is
embedded into the network broadband node devices....and what about
indoor/mobile devices that can't communicate with the local node???

If a free-for-all channel assignment scheme is ever approved, how would
multiple broadband service providers share a small number of channels???
If frequency agile devices are employed, how effective will their transmit
bandpass filters be (current technology employs fixed multi-pole filters).

All true but there is also the fact that the proposed power levels for the mobile devices (100 milliwatts on non-adjacent channels, 40 on adjacent) are too high. Not only do such power levels greatly increase the chance they will interfere with television reception (including cable TV) but they will also interfere with other WSDs in crowded metro areas. I'm not an RF engineer but IMHO a 10 milliwatt WSD would have at least the same range as a typical Wi-Fi router but with the ability to better penetrate or diffract around obstacles.

BTW if think Wi-Fi range is short, the record for the longest unamplified Wi-Fi Link (a Linksys WRT54G at each end) is 173 miles.
holl_ands's Avatar holl_ands
05:56 PM Liked: 69
post #95 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 3,757
Joined: Jun 2004
Here's info re that Wi-Fi record using big dish antennas:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/19/v...ord-237-miles/
Good luck finding a "Wi-Fi free" area in the U.S. to replicate that feat....

The indoor & mobile WSD max EIRP discussion
(see above posts for 5-10 mW vs 40/100 mW)
INCLUDES the gain of the antenna.
Digital Rules's Avatar Digital Rules
06:09 PM Liked: 14
post #96 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 1,691
Joined: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

That is probably true unless that rooftop antenna is amplified or the WSD relies only on signal sensing and transmits from what is known as a hidden node and of course a UVSF won't filter out WSDs because they're in-band.

Are you saying that the whitespace device may create some sort of slight overload in the amplified antenna system? A situation that would compromise it's adjacent channel selectivity performance?

Or possibly that the device is not broadcasting on the exact adjacent frequency, but instead is transmitting slightly off frequency, above or below the adjacent channel frequency onto part of a co-channel frequency?

Hope this makes sense
nybbler's Avatar nybbler
08:01 PM Liked: 10
post #97 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 697
Joined: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Rules View Post

Are you saying that the whitespace device may create some sort of slight overload in the amplified antenna system? A situation that would compromise it's adjacent channel selectivity performance?

It quite likely won't be "slight" overload. Suppose I'm out in the boonies where all my TV stations are -85dB or below, and I have a rooftop antenna with a CM7777. Now my neighbor powers up his whitespace device. First, it can't detect any of those -85dB TV stations, because it's sitting at ground level with a tiny antenna (0dBd, at best -- probably worse). So it might well power up at 100mW right on a station. Suppose it doesn't, but hits somewhere else within the band at 100mW. That's a 20dBm signal. If it's 100m away from my antenna, that's -46dBm at my pre-amp, which is likely not going to work and play well with the other -85dBm signals. If it's first adjacent, forget it -- even if the pre-amp can handle it, the tuner can't.
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
11:18 PM Liked: 10
post #98 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Rules View Post

Are you saying that the whitespace device may create some sort of slight overload in the amplified antenna system? A situation that would compromise it's adjacent channel selectivity performance?

Or possibly that the device is not broadcasting on the exact adjacent frequency, but instead is transmitting slightly off frequency, above or below the adjacent channel frequency onto part of a co-channel frequency?

Yes it can cause overload to a nearby amplified antenna system and DTV tuner.

Since the WSDs will be designed to transmit on multiple channels it will be impractical to design them so they don't leak any transmission to unintended (especially adjacent) channels.
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
11:42 PM Liked: 10
post #99 of 249
11-02-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post

Suppose I'm out in the boonies where all my TV stations are -85dB or below, and I have a rooftop antenna with a CM7777. Now my neighbor powers up his whitespace device. First, it can't detect any of those -85dB TV stations, because it's sitting at ground level with a tiny antenna (0dBd, at best -- probably worse)

Actually the WSDs are supposed to detect the pilot signal of TV station at -114db so it might (borderline) detect those -85db stations. An uncompromised value of -130db could have been chosen but that requires some expensive test equipment to achieve.
holl_ands's Avatar holl_ands
01:57 AM Liked: 69
post #100 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 3,757
Joined: Jun 2004
Although some of the tested WSDs could detect DTV Field Captures (with multipath, et. al.)
at -114 dBm (and others couldn't), they had very spotty performance detecting a weak
DTV signal with a stronger adjacent DTV signal present (see Table 3.1 in WSD PhII Report),
probably due to AGC desensitization in their RF tuner.

PS: Typical sensitivity with Preamp is about -88 dBm...and some are 1-2 dB better.
That's about 25 dB difference between DTV and WSD sensitivity if they BOTH used
0 dB gain antennas. But DTV antenna could win back 10-15+ dB, eating into that
25 dB difference....a FAIR comparison would consider field strengths (mV/m)
and both situations: indoor (incl Smart Antennas) & mast mounted DTV antennas.
PPS: When in an apartment, I used 4-Bay "indoor" antennas. I'm finding
the RCA ANT2000 Smart Antenna holds it's own against a 4-Bay.

Bob Chase's reported difference in mast vs ATTIC location was 20-25+ dB
(considerably higher than a more typical 13 dB +/- 7 dB).
A lower location would have been even higher difference:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5399471
electrictroy's Avatar electrictroy
08:19 AM Liked: 10
post #101 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 776
Joined: Jul 2008
I don't think there's any point continuing the "sense tv stations" discussion, because the Whitespace Coalition is now talking about using databases/geolocation to determine which channels will be open.

This opens-up a different set of problems. Since the FCC Secretary is on-record as saying viewers should not be watching out-of-market stations, he will probably determine it's okay for whitespace devices to broadcast over-top of nearby cities that are not part of my designated market area (DMA). It is on that basis that I determined my station count would drop from 15 long-distance to just 3 locals.
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
08:40 AM Liked: 10
post #102 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Just looking at my local Pittsburgh market, I scratch my head wondering where all these white spaces will be next February. Pittsburgh will have 9 full power stations and channels 14 and 18 are assigned to land mobile. After maximization at least 4 stations from 3 adjacent DMAs will reach into the middle of the Pittsburgh market. There will also be a significant number of more distant stations that will reach at least into the fringes. The Pittsburgh area also has numerous Class A or low power stations including several that will be moving to in-core channels and one that has actually been dark for several years waiting for an empty channel.

Unless the white space proponents are talking about low VHF channels (I don't believe they want to go there!) I just don't see much white space. Did I mention that one of the local million watt stations has already announced their intention to to ask permission from the FCC for a completely new digital translator to improve reception for a valley right in the heart of the DMA. If that goes well they may also consider additional translators for other valleys. Of course Pittsburgh not having some minor networks such as Telemundo and Ion doesn't have the title for the Most Crowded RF in the country and I'll let places like DC, LA, and Philly fight for that.
holl_ands's Avatar holl_ands
09:26 AM Liked: 69
post #103 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 3,757
Joined: Jun 2004
Expressed argument against WSD operation on Ch2-6 has been possible interference
with CH3/4 output on VCRs, Cable boxes, CECB converter boxes, et. al.

So why would WSD guys be concerned about direct pickup interference on Ch3/4
(and adjacents) but refuse to recognize the same problem for Ch14-51 into
cable systems, boxes and TVs......
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
11:33 AM Liked: 10
post #104 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

So why would WSD guys be concerned about direct pickup interference on Ch3/4
(and adjacents) but refuse to recognize the same problem for Ch14-51 into
cable systems, boxes and TVs......

They wouldn't be concerned about that but the noise, over 3' long antennas, etc. should be a concern to them. Maybe they could be used in a backhaul from the base stations role but low VHF seems totally unsuitable for the portable WSDs.
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
08:36 PM Liked: 12
post #105 of 249
11-03-2008 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
From The New York Times

Airwaves Battle Pits Dolly Parton Against Google
By MATT RICHTEL
Published: November 3, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — Tuesday marks the end of a battle that has lasted for more than two years, with each side predicting apocalyptic consequences should it lose.
Not the fight for the presidency — the one pitting Google against Dolly Parton.

The titan of Silicon Valley and the queen of country are two of the many combatants in a high-tech dispute over precious slices of the nation’s airwaves. The issue comes to a head on Election Day, when the Federal Communications Commission votes on a proposal to make a disputed chunk of radio spectrum available for public use.

Google, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and other technology companies say the spectrum could be used by a whole new array of Internet-connected wireless gadgets. They say freeing it up would encourage innovation and investment in much the same way that the spread of Wi-Fi technology has. (This would generate more business for tech companies.)

But a coalition of old-guard media — from television networks to Broadway producers — is objecting to the proposal, saying it needs a closer look. The opponents argue that signals sent over those frequencies could interfere with broadcasts and wireless microphones at live productions.

The measure appears likely to pass, though its opponents have mounted a spirited late-stage lobbying effort supported by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York and others in Congress. Also opposed are the professional sports leagues, Las Vegas casinos, a coalition of rock musicians and, of late, Ms. Parton, who is soon to open a Broadway show called “9 to 5: The Musical.”

If the spectrum is set free, Ms. Parton says, chaos could reign on Broadway — in the form of static and other interference.

“The potential direct negative impact on countless people may be immeasurable,” Ms. Parton wrote in a letter last month to the F.C.C., urging it not to release the frequencies.

Ms. Parton became involved after she was contacted by the Broadway League, a theater industry trade group that has lobbied the F.C.C. on the issue and coordinated support from performers. The trade group said Ms. Parton had been more engaged than other performers because she was also a producer of live shows.

In the digital era, airwaves carrying television, cellphone and wireless Internet signals are highly valuable. The F.C.C. regulates the spectrum and auctions off licenses for its use — in some cases for billions of dollars — to private companies. But in this case it is considering setting aside a free or “unlicensed” section for public use.

Tech companies argue that if it does so, entrepreneurs and innovators will create a new generation of devices that transmit signals farther and more reliably than Wi-Fi, which also relies on unlicensed spectrum. The technology could also handle cheap Internet-based phone calls.

“This could lead to Wi-Fi on steroids,” said Richard Whitt, a Washington lobbyist for Google on telecommunications issues. “It could become a ubiquitous nationwide broadband network.” The battle between the old media and new media companies is a byproduct of an impending change in the way over-the-air TV signals are delivered. In February, TV stations will be required to switch from analog broadcasting to digital, which is less susceptible to radio interference.

Since 2004, the F.C.C. has been studying whether it might make better use of some “white spaces,” TV frequencies that are not being used by broadcast channels. These frequencies have traditionally been left largely empty, because broadcasters send out such powerful signals that a buffer is needed between channels.

The theory behind the F.C.C. proposal is that hand-held devices and other gadgets emit such low levels of power that their transmissions will not overlap or interfere with the digital TV signals. Also, the proposal’s supporters say, devices can be made smart enough to sense when they might interfere with a broadcast signal and find another frequency.

The F.C.C. has been studying the potential for interference and found that most problems can be avoided through tight regulation of the new devices, said Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the F.C.C., who proposed the white space measure.

“We’re being very cautious about protecting the broadcasters, but at the same time making sure the technology allows us to make greater use of this invaluable resource,” Mr. Martin said.

He added that he thought some opponents, like the broadcasters, were fighting the proposal because they were unnerved by the rise of interactive tools that offered a less passive media experience. “The empowerment of consumers is threatening,” he said.

The five-member commission seems likely to approve the measure, according to several people who were involved in the agency’s internal discussions but who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Beneath the surface of the debate are shifts in politics and culture. Heavy Internet and computer adoption by consumers has given the technology lobby more power and prominence. At the same time, the broadcast industry has lost some of its lobbying sway as consumer tastes have changed and advertising dollars have flowed to the Internet.

Still, the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents 8,300 local and national television stations, is helping lead the effort to get the F.C.C. to postpone a decision on the measure.

Without more testing, “this could be a recipe for potentially massive interference into the television spectrum,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the broadcasting trade group, arguing that TV screens could go temporarily dark or that pictures could freeze. Broadcasters say the signal could even disrupt channels received over cable.

The interests of TV providers is different from those of Broadway theaters, which rely on wireless microphones to broadcast sound to the audience and for communication among crew members.

Gerald Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, a Broadway production company, said new gadgets that were intended to use the disputed frequencies could interfere with the 450 wireless microphones used in New York’s theater district. That could lead to static, he said, or worse — if, for instance, crew member communications were hindered, causing an accident like a falling set piece.

“There’s a danger element attached to this,” he said. “They are fooling with many aspects of American society under the pretext of helping get Internet access for parties that already have the greatest amount of Internet usage.”

Urging a delay on the vote, Mr. Schoenfeld added: “Why this is being rushed through at this time is mystifying.”

The wireless microphone technology used for Broadway shows and other events uses some of the same frequencies that regulators would like to open up for wireless data. But under the F.C.C. proposal, these incumbent users would be given first rights to the space.

In her letter to the F.C.C., Ms. Parton conceded that she did not understand all the technicalities of the debate. But based on the counsel of others, she concluded that the potential problems were serious. She called the proposal “a dangerous and shortsighted answer to a highly complicated question.” The Broadway League and Ms. Parton’s representatives said she was too busy to comment further.

For his part, Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, sent his own letter to the F.C.C. recently.

“We are eight days away from a vote that could transform the way we connect to the Internet,” he wrote. “The time for study and talk is over. The time for action has arrived.”
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
04:08 PM Liked: 10
post #106 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

From The New York Times

Airwaves Battle Pits Dolly Parton Against Google
By MATT RICHTEL
Published: November 3, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO Tuesday marks the end of a battle that has lasted for more than two years, with each side predicting apocalyptic consequences should it lose.
Not the fight for the presidency the one pitting Google against Dolly Parton.

Tech companies argue that if it does so, entrepreneurs and innovators will create a new generation of devices that transmit signals farther and more reliably than Wi-Fi, which also relies on unlicensed spectrum. The technology could also handle cheap Internet-based phone calls.

This could lead to Wi-Fi on steroids, said Richard Whitt, a Washington lobbyist for Google on telecommunications issues.

In her letter to the F.C.C., Ms. Parton conceded that she did not understand all the technicalities of the debate. But based on the counsel of others, she concluded that the potential problems were serious. She called the proposal a dangerous and shortsighted answer to a highly complicated question. The Broadway League and Ms. Parton's representatives said she was too busy to comment further.

For his part, Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, sent his own letter to the F.C.C. recently.

We are eight days away from a vote that could transform the way we connect to the Internet, he wrote. The time for study and talk is over. The time for action has arrived.

"Wi-Fi on steroids" is a good analogy as long as we remember that otherwise healthy young athletes who abuse steroids can die of heart failure at a young age. IMHO if the proposed powers levels for the unlicensed fixed base stations is 4 watts (these should really be nominally licensed) and 100 milliwatts for unlicensed portable devices then that really is white space steroid abuse. Power isn't everything when it comes to RF and part of the reason these people want white space spectrum is because they have already congested the Wi-Fi spectrum.
BeachComber's Avatar BeachComber
04:14 PM Liked: 11
post #107 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 2,618
Joined: Jan 2008
Just approved at the FCC.

Now the real fun begins.

As Walter Liss @ ABC said to the FCC "I write to raise one basic question in this proceeding: Are you prepared to authorize millions of unlicensed personal/portable devices in the TV band based on the hope that none of them will ever break and cause untraceable interference to consumer TV reception?"

Apparently, the FCC was prepared to do just that.
Nitewatchman's Avatar Nitewatchman
04:27 PM Liked: 18
post #108 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 6,292
Joined: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCC WSD 2nd R&O News Release - Full Text View Post


NEWS
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:
November 4, 2008 Robert Kenny: (202) 418-2668 (PSHSB)
Bruce Romano: (202) 418-2124 (OET)

----------------------------------------------------

FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR UNLICENSED USE OF TELEVISON WHITE SPACES

In its continuing efforts to promote efficient use of spectrum and to extend the benefits of such use to the public, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today adopted a Second Report and Order (Second R&O) that establishes rules to allow new, sophisticated wireless devices to operate in broadcast television spectrum on a secondary basis at locations where that spectrum is open. (This unused TV spectrum is now commonly referred to as television white spaces). The rules adopted today will allow for the use of these new and innovative types of unlicensed devices in the unused spectrum to provide broadband data and other services for consumers and businesses.

The rules represent a careful first step to permit the operation of unlicensed devices in the TV white spaces and include numerous safeguards to protect incumbent services against harmful interference. The rules will allow for both fixed and personal/portable unlicensed devices. Such devices must include a geolocation capability and provisions to access over the Internet a data base of the incumbent services, such as full power and low power TV stations and cable system headends, in addition to spectrum-sensing technology. The data base will tell the white space device what spectrum may be used at that location.

Wireless microphones will be protected in a variety of ways. The locations where wireless microphones are used, such as sporting venues and event and production facilities, can be registered in the data base and will be protected in the same way as other services. The Commission also has required that devices include the ability to listen to the airwaves to sense wireless microphones as an additional measure of protection for these devices. All white space devices are subject to equipment certification by the FCC Laboratory. The Laboratory will request samples of the devices for testing to ensure that they meet all the pertinent requirements.

The Commission also will permit certification of devices that do not include the geolocation and data base access capabilities, and instead rely solely on spectrum sensing to avoid causing harmful interference, subject to a much more rigorous approval process. In a process that will be open to the public, applications will be released for public comment prior to agency action. Such devices will be tested by our Laboratory to a Proof of Performance standard both in the lab and in a variety of real-world environments to ensure they do not cause interference to licensed services when in use. The staff report and recommendation will also be released for public comment. For now, certification of any such device will require approval by the full Commission.

Manufacturers may continue to provide additional information to the Commission to support the use of higher power devices in adjacent channels. In addition, the Commission will explore in a separate Notice of Inquiry whether higher-powered unlicensed operations might be permitted in TV white spaces in rural areas.

The Commission will closely oversee and monitor the introduction of TV white space devices. The Commission will act promptly to remove from the market any equipment found to be causing harmful interference and will require the responsible parties to take appropriate actions to remedy any interference that may occur.

Action by the Commission November 4, 2008, by Second Report and Order (FCC 08-260). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and McDowell with Commissioner Tate approving and dissenting in part. Separate statements issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell.

For additional information, contact Alan Stillwell at (202) 418-2470 or alan.stillwell@fcc.gov.

Above News Release available here (PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A1.pdf

Chairman Martin Statement (PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A2.pdf

Commisioner Copps Statment(PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A3.pdf

Commissioner Adelstein's Statement(PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A4.pdf

Commissioner Tate's Statement (PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A5.pdf

Commissioner McDowell's Statment (PDF) :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-286566A6.pdf
holl_ands's Avatar holl_ands
04:52 PM Liked: 69
post #109 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 3,757
Joined: Jun 2004
GOOD NEWS: Initially ALL devices must access a database of
prohibited channels, based on location....and undergo certification.

Now arguments can center on what, exactly goes into that database....
And what sort of EIRP power level mobile/handheld devices can transmit....

As usual, the full text of the Report and Order will follow "sometime soon"...
Then we can see what they did in order to get this rushed through before
the next administration takes over....
seatacboy's Avatar seatacboy
05:05 PM Liked: 20
post #110 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 1,073
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachComber View Post

As Walter Liss @ ABC said to the FCC "I write to raise one basic question in this proceeding: Are you prepared to authorize millions of unlicensed personal/portable devices in the TV band based on the hope that none of them will ever break and cause untraceable interference to consumer TV reception?"

Apparently, the FCC was prepared to do just that.

I'm quite dismayed about the FCC's decision. The decision is likely to lead to numerous technical difficulties for OTA DTV viewers.

The big winner in this decision: pay TV cable and satellite TV operators.
Falcon_77's Avatar Falcon_77
06:48 PM Liked: 10
post #111 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 2,602
Joined: May 2007
Only Commissioner Tate seems to have any significant concerns with WSD's. It surprises me that Commissioner Copps doesn't seem to have reservations. He has been the most vocal proponent of increased measures for DTV education and testing from the Commission.

Commissioner Tate has expressed concerns with allowing WSD's throughout the entire "core" spectrum, but considering that Low-VHF will be the most vacant area, it could allow for band separation down the road.

I find it ironic that UHF, with its poor reputation for analog TV, has become the real battle ground for hi-tech services. Are all TV channels going to be pushed onto VHF? Obviously that is impossible in most areas, but the UHF spectrum is under siege as I see it.

What if we want to use something else for 21-51 in the future? It's going to be hard to do if it has been turned into a wasteland. "Wi-Fi on Steroids"? Exactly, take steroids and your body can be ruined. The same goes for the airwaves.

I don't see cable TV being a winner with this. Satellite... definitely. I can see the marketing already, "Your neighbor's WSD's got you down? Move on up to Satellite, where the airwaves are always clear!"
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
07:40 PM Liked: 10
post #112 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

What if we want to use something else for 21-51 in the future? It's going to be hard to do if it has been turned into a wasteland. "Wi-Fi on Steroids"? Exactly, take steroids and your body can be ruined. The same goes for the airwaves.

I don't see cable TV being a winner with this. Satellite... definitely. I can see the marketing already, "Your neighbor's WSD's got you down? Move on up to Satellite, where the airwaves are always clear!"

Except many of the locals for satellite are received at the POP over the air. Yes they can register the POP in the database but if they allow devices that only use signal sensing in the future that will only work for awhile.

BTW will they allow anybody to register their house, apartment, etc. who doesn't want interference in the database?
Nitewatchman's Avatar Nitewatchman
11:25 PM Liked: 18
post #113 of 249
11-04-2008 | Posts: 6,292
Joined: Dec 2001
Those who haven't checked it out may also find the audio/video from the WSD portion of the meeting today interesting -- ( I certianly did, especially the comments(not many) made which didn't make it into the text-based statements :

It's available here(Realplayer format), WSD portion of the meeting begins about 39 Minutes in :

http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/agendameetings.html

I think I'll mostly hold my tongue at this point+until I can read/study the R&O and MO&O involved ... But i's awfully hard, given some of the comments about "Wi-fi on Amphetimines" (didn't make it into the text -- but the commisioner that said that was saying it in such a way that its "even better" than wi-fi on steroids), and comments about giving out OET engineer home phone #, Copps comments(which did make it into his statement in text) about "Junk Spectrum", and some of the "hints" (mostly in the documents) of what the R&O and MO&O will say ......

While it's not "funny" at all, I must admit I can find quite a bit of humour in what I heard today .....

I'm not sure if anyone (including FCC) except the WSD proponents and those making $ off the WSD's will be laughing about it in a few years (or say 5~10 years or more from now) though ....

If some of us get to say "We told you so" at that point, it isn't going to make any of us "feel" any better 10 years from now if the Core DTV spectrum --- some of the most useful spectrum available for terrestrial/Broadcast use(Including by OTA"wireless" TV broadcast "viewers" NOT just broadcasters and and wireless microphone users) becomes a big chunk of "junk spectrum" ....
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
12:05 AM Liked: 10
post #114 of 249
11-05-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

I'm not sure if anyone (including FCC) except the WSD proponents and those making $ off the WSD's will be laughing about it in a few years (or say 5~10 years or more from now) though ....
....

You mean those who made $ off the WSDs because at some point even the WSD users won't be pleased with the trashed spectrum. The WSD proponents don't realize yet that they are their own worst enemies.
BeachComber's Avatar BeachComber
02:57 AM Liked: 11
post #115 of 249
11-05-2008 | Posts: 2,618
Joined: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by seatacboy View Post

I'm quite dismayed about the FCC's decision. The decision is likely to lead to numerous technical difficulties for OTA DTV viewers.

The big winner in this decision: pay TV cable and satellite TV operators.

Well, lets see. We can't even get non-tainted food and no-lead paint out of China, you really think the devices coming out will adhere to the guidelines properly

We've already seen XM and Sirius have tower locations in the wrong place, transmitting at levels 2x-5x more than authorized and even FM adapters that were too strong - and this was a company that was supposed to know what it was doing when it came to the FCC, licenses and proper broadcast techniques ......... God help us after the 2 cent transmitters from the child labor camps in the Far East get involved....
electrictroy's Avatar electrictroy
04:24 AM Liked: 10
post #116 of 249
11-05-2008 | Posts: 776
Joined: Jul 2008
Slashdot posted yet another article about White Space Devices - http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.../11/05/0016251
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

GOOD NEWS: Initially ALL devices must access a database of prohibited channels, based on location....and undergo certification.

No. It's VERY BAD NEWS, because the database will determine my WSD-equipped neighbor is in the Lancaster-Harrisburg DMA, and decide that channels from nearby DMAs like Baltimore and Philadelphia are not being used. Then it will start broadcasting directly over top the Baltimore/Philly channels.

This is the same way Dish and Directv markets are setup. Your "locals" are only those stations inside your DMA. Other stations from nearby cities don't exist as far as they are concerned, and the Whitespace devices will likely operate on the same principle of ignoring nearby cities.

I may as well sell my antenna now and jump onto cable, since I will soon have WSDs trampling all over my long-distance channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 29, 35, 45, 57, and 65..... thereby making the antenna worthless for over-the-air reception from Philly or Baltimore.
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
08:12 AM Liked: 10
post #117 of 249
11-05-2008 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

Those who haven't checked it out may also find the audio/video from the WSD portion of the meeting today interesting -- ( I certianly did, especially the comments(not many) made which didn't make it into the text-based statements :

It's available here(Realplayer format), WSD portion of the meeting begins about 39 Minutes in :

http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/agendameetings.html

I think I'll mostly hold my tongue at this point+until I can read/study the R&O and MO&O involved ... But i's awfully hard, given some of the comments about "Wi-fi on Amphetimines" (didn't make it into the text -- but the commisioner that said that was saying it in such a way that its "even better" than wi-fi on steroids), and comments about giving out OET engineer home phone #, Copps comments(which did make it into his statement in text) about "Junk Spectrum", and some of the "hints" (mostly in the documents) of what the R&O and MO&O will say ......

Thanks for the link, seeing the video was a real education.

The head of the OET lab seemed very nervous during his presentation and I was shocked by how disrespectful the FCC Commissioners were to him afterwards. Despite Kevin Martin's statement to the contrary the OET is not independent with the engineers being treated like lapdogs and the Commissioners getting any result they want from the OET in recent years.
Nitewatchman's Avatar Nitewatchman
07:04 PM Liked: 18
post #118 of 249
11-05-2008 | Posts: 6,292
Joined: Dec 2001
We don't know yet what the interference protection criteria will be regarding the geolocation database --- That should come in the R&O, and is an item of particular interest for my personal OTA reception 'circumstance' given I receive excellent reception("non-DX") of several stations(including UHF analog LP's) in my area from a fair amount outside or right on the edge of their protected service areas with receive antenna setup that meets or exceeds FCC "planning factors" for reception ....

FCC did make a proposal on it in the 2004 NPRM (See earlier link), Basically, it involved stations interference protected contours AND(of interest for fringe area/outside of service contour viewers) certian required D/U ratios (I'm not sure how they would be able to actually implement or enforce what they proposed) which I won't go into in detail given we should be able to see the R&O fairly soon, but their proposal in the 2004 NPRM on it was the last offical word about it I'm aware of ....
electrictroy's Avatar electrictroy
09:48 AM Liked: 10
post #119 of 249
11-06-2008 | Posts: 776
Joined: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

...AND(of interest for fringe area/outside of service contour viewers) certain required D/U ratios ....

What's a D/U ratio?

Well one thing is for certain. If I'm trying to watch WBAL or WPHL (neither of which I'm supposed to get, but come in nice and clear), and the image suddenly starts breaking-up repeatedly, I'm going to track down the offending Ipod and ask the owner to turn it off per Section 15 rules.

If they don't comply, I will call the cops. If the cops can't do anything, then I will call the FCC. If they can't do anything either, then I will smash the Ipod to bits. Television has the first claim to the frequencies, and nothing is going to stop me from watching free television as I have done these last 35 years.
electrictroy's Avatar electrictroy
09:50 AM Liked: 10
post #120 of 249
11-06-2008 | Posts: 776
Joined: Jul 2008
SLASHDOTTED AGAIN - a new article posted: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article...8/11/06/168254

On slashdot some of the engineers said it would be extremely easy to reprogram the firmware to ignore the Geolocator database (similar to how PSPs or Gameboys are hacked), and just start broadcasting on any channel the Ipod felt like broadcasting.

That's not what I wanted to hear.

Reply HDTV Technical

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3