'White Space' & DTV topic - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 249 Old 11-19-2008, 12:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 57
The same way they "prevented" the exportation of illegal CB Radios....
Fergetaboutit....it's not our problem.....
holl_ands is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 249 Old 11-19-2008, 04:01 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What a mess.

BTW it's just dawned on me why they renamed these gadgets to "TV Band Devices". They want to differentiate them from the "White Space Devices" that will be operating on channels 52-69 and the cellular frequencies.
electrictroy is offline  
post #153 of 249 Old 11-19-2008, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

The same way they "prevented" the exportation of illegal CB Radios....
Fergetaboutit....it's not our problem.....

The problem with that attitude is that technology has improved to the point where these things could be designed to be useless where they don't belong. Foreign countries, Congress and the courts don't have to be as forgiving the second time around.

Speaking of where they don't belong, shouldn't the protection of full power TV stations from these TVBDs extend at least 10 km (6.1 mi.) beyond their contour?
Sammer is offline  
post #154 of 249 Old 02-03-2009, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interference to DTV Reception

This issue seems to have gotten lost in the delay discussions, but one possible benefit of a delay in the date is another 4 months without WSD's/TVBD's. I don't know where the various companies are with this, but the latest article, posted by Charlie Rhodes on TVT, is making me think about these devices again.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/73532

It is a bit lengthy, but demonstrates how only 3 WSD's can hamper reception throughout large portions of the UHF band.

Quote:
My experiments convince me that third-order distortion products generated by a triplet of strong broadband signals from nearby TVBD radiating 4 watts may cause loss of DTV reception on any of a large number of channels. This interference mechanism is not recognized by the FCC as a significant threat to DTV reception. This is our problem.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #155 of 249 Old 02-05-2009, 09:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Yep, I'd seen that TVTechnology article a few days ago. I certianly haven't forgotten about this ....

Has the WSD (err TVBD) rules adopted Nov 4 been published in Federal Register yet? Did a little digging, but couldn't seem to find out ... They also don't seem to be included yet in any online version of CFR I checked -- One one Gov't site, last update to Title 47 CFR available online seemed to be from Oct 2008 ....

Also, The following from The "Final Rules" in Appendix B of the R&O seems to be an error perhaps? Went looking around a bit for info on this as well, as I'd expected it would be modified by now, but couldn't find any info on it :

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSD R&O, Appendix B "final rules" View Post


Section 15.712 - Interference Protection requirements

(f) Low power auxilliary services, including wireless microphones

(2) (A) TVBDs will not be permitted to operate within 134 km of the 13 metropolitan areas listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter.

However, section 15.712 (d) says :

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSD R&O, Appendix B "final rules View Post


Section 15.712 - Interference protection requirements

(d) - (d) PLMRS/CMRS operations: TVBDs may not operate at distances less than 134 km for co-channel operations and 131 km for adjacent channel operations from the coordinates of the metropolitan areas and on the channels listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter. For PLMRS/CMRS operations outside of the metropolitan areas listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter, co-channel and adjacent channel TVBDs may not operate closer than 54 km and 51 km, respectively from a base station.

(f)(2)(A) Seems to indicate NO TVBD's will be allowed to operate at all, on any channel within 134Km of the MSA's involved for Land Mobile services, but (d) specifies only co-channel and adjacent channel restrictions ....

When I'd seen that when I first read through/studied the "final rules" to be added to CFR as stated in appendix B of the R&O, I thought I must be *missing* something(and maybe I still am), but then just after the R&O was published, I also saw it mentioned in another article at tvtechnology.com ....

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #156 of 249 Old 02-24-2009, 02:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
OK, found erratum issued by FCC which "corrects" several items in the WSD rules .. For example, 15.712 (f)(2)(A) Mentioned above was deleted .....

Here's the ERRATUM document :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-287799A1.pdf

Also, Looks like the new WSD ("TVBD") rules were published in Federal Register on of all days, Feb 17 :

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-3279.pdf

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-3290.pdf

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #157 of 249 Old 03-04-2009, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Article :

Broadcasters Sue FCC Over White Spaces Decision

Quote:
The Association for Maximum Service Television and the National Association of Broadcasters jointly filed a petition with the federal court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit, their preferred venue, to hold unlawful, vacate and set aside" its decision allowing the devices, which broadcasters argue interferes with DTV transmissions, a fact they say FCC engineers themselves concluded.

And another article :

MSTV, NAB Challenge FCC Over White Spaces

Quote:
The two organizations, representing the interests of broadcasters and off-air television viewers, respectively, have decided to initiate a legal challenge to the Commission’s sanctioning of the WSD device technology, fearing that it will create widespread interference to television signals being delivered off-air......

....The off-air television advocate organizations ask that the “Court hold unlawful, vacate and set aside the [FCC’s] Second Report and Order and grant such relief as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances.” .....


Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #158 of 249 Old 03-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
MAX HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greensburg In.47240
Posts: 915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

Article :

Broadcasters Sue FCC Over White Spaces Decision



And another article :

MSTV, NAB Challenge FCC Over White Spaces


Well,at least they're trying to do something.If this nonsense goes through it will turn the TV spectum into a "Junk Band".There's one post on this thread that really opened my eyes by [Detroitdt];

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15031559

Out here in the deep fringe a 1mW signal to a preamp could kill everything,let alone 40mW/100mW or the whopping 4W base signals.


Another thing that burns me is the local cable headend gets a white space-free zone for these things so they can still distribute four legacy stations in our local DMA that OTA users won't have access to.Not to mention the 13 adjacent DMA stations that are receivable 24/7 now.

Also,I can't see any relief from the next FCC Chair.He's aready stated " It's time to pry the lid off the TV Spectrum".
MAX HD is offline  
post #159 of 249 Old 03-27-2009, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Cable Sides With Broadcasters in White Space Battle

From TVT:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/77202

Quote:


NCTA warns that the rules, as they currently exist, will allow TV band devices (TVDBs) to operate at power levels that will cause significant interference to cable TV reception, especially digital services. Other services that depend on the cable TV signal, including cable modem Internet access and telephone service, may also be affected. These conclusions are based on a study by consulting engineering firm Carl T. Jones that showed real world interference was worse than what was originally predicted. Personal/portable TVDBs were found to cause interference to cable TV reception up to 80 feet away.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #160 of 249 Old 03-27-2009, 03:10 PM
Member
 
strudel.chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rochester MN
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Cable Sides With Broadcasters in White Space Battle

From TVT:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/77202

Hmmm... This quote makes me wonder if WSD's will ever see the light of day.
Not only messing with OTA reception, but cable systems too?

Especially with so many cable operators offering VOIP/Phone service via digital cable.... It'll be hard to justify an Ipod possibly messing with a 911 VOIP call.

Always tweaking, modifying and re-arranging my electronics....
strudel.chris is offline  
post #161 of 249 Old 03-27-2009, 03:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by strudel.chris View Post

Hmmm... This quote makes me wonder if WSD's will ever see the light of day.

We can only hope they never do.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #162 of 249 Old 03-27-2009, 09:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Piggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Orange Springs, FL
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by strudel.chris View Post

Hmmm... This quote makes me wonder if WSD's will ever see the light of day.
Not only messing with OTA reception, but cable systems too?

Especially with so many cable operators offering VOIP/Phone service via digital cable.... It'll be hard to justify an Ipod possibly messing with a 911 VOIP call.

Strange bedfellows. But if cable is also behind the fight the odds of stopping them just quadrupled or more.

- Please don't PM with any thing that could be useful to the general group.
Piggie is offline  
post #163 of 249 Old 03-28-2009, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 57
The threat to in-home cable systems is from in-home UNLICENCED WSD,
which can be readily solved by going to 5 mW rather than 40+ mW.
For comparison, in-home WiFi is 40-100 mW.

So, although lower freqs will help, there might be a significant range limitation
from the in-home WSD device back to the in-home "WSD Node", which
in turn will need an outdoor antenna to reach to local broadband hub,
cuz 5 mW isn't gonna make it via a direct path (they never talk about THAT).
BTW: WSD BB hub may be in different direction than for TV.

Likewise, the threat to cable headends and Low Power TV stations can be
solved by restricting wide area broadband hub transmitters to 1 vice 4 watts,
in addition to acknowledged careful site selection via licensing process.
And the "low-cost" broadband service providers will need a lot more of them....

PS: If there are 3-5 competing BB service providers in an area, each asking
for say 5 frequency assignments (gotta compete with cable data rates),
how many "white spaces" are needed....versus available.....
holl_ands is offline  
post #164 of 249 Old 03-28-2009, 11:24 AM
Member
 
andytiedye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

Considering that the mandated use of CFL bulbs is going to destroy the reception of the AM radio band

Use LEDs! No RFI, and and no having to figure out what to do with dead CF bulbs.

Ride the Music
andytiedye is offline  
post #165 of 249 Old 03-28-2009, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Unfortunately, although LED light bulbs will probably last "forever", they're an order of magnitude
more expensive than CFL:
http://www.greenandmore.com/evolux-h...html?googprodf
Which in turn are more than an order of magnitude more expensive than incandescent.
holl_ands is offline  
post #166 of 249 Old 04-10-2009, 12:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
National Broadband Plan Includes Wireless, TV White Space'

From TVT:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/78186

Quote:


The FCC this week announced it had begun the process of developing a national broadband plan to ensure every American has access to broadband capability. Although wireless broadband was not mentioned in the announcement, the Notice of Inquiry has a section on Wireless Service Policies. Some of the options outlined in the section include encouraging carriers to provide service to rural areas, spectrum use, unlicensed use of core TV spectrum white spaces and new satellite services.

With regards to TV white space, the Notice of Inquiry asks, Given the importance to wireless broadband services of backhaul to the PSTN and the Internet, how can this spectrum be maximized to provide point-to-point backhaul in rural areas? Several other bands are currently used by WISPs to provide broadband through the use of unlicensed devices. What more should the Commission do with respect to permitting the use of unlicensed devices? How should the Commission measure 'subscribership' or use of devices utilizing unlicensed spectrum? What more should the Commission do to promote the development of cognitive radio devices in order to ensure more availability of spectrum for broadband uses? To what extent should unlicensed wireless play a role in a national broadband plan?

The FCC recognized satellite links may be the only option for rural areas with low population density and little telecommunication infrastructure. The Commission has also streamlined non-routine earth station processing rules, which has facilitated access to terrestrial communications facilities by satellite-based broadband service providers, the NOI said. Given the ubiquitous coverage capabilities of satellites, we seek comment on what further actions the Commission can take to promote the use of satellite-based platforms for access to broadband, especially in rural and remote communities. The new broadcasting satellite services (BSS) licenses in the 17/24 GHz offer the potential for a new generation of broadband services to the public.

For broadcasters, use of TV band white space for coordinated fixed links is preferable to having a large number of unlicensed personal portable devices operating within a few meters of TV sets. If it is determined more spectrum will help national broadband deployment, don't be surprised if the FCC considers other frequencies allocated for broadcast or broadcast auxiliary services for national broadband for use in rural areas.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #167 of 249 Old 04-10-2009, 12:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Wireless shouldn't be used in the national broadcast infrastructure. It's not fast enough for applications of the future, especially if people are planning on streaming HD video.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #168 of 249 Old 05-05-2009, 06:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
A bit of new activity --- Several petitions for reconsideration of the WSD R&O have been filed in Docket #04-186 per publication of the new WSD rules in Federal register .. Also, FCC has extended the comment date regarding those by 10 days to a new May 8 deadline, reply/opposition comments to May 18 ... See the filings since March or so in ECFS for Docket 04-186 (I haven't read many of them, but so far I personally found the SBE filings to be good reading) , and/or the following articles for more info :

FCC Asks Court to Wait on White Spaces

White Space Battle Continues

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #169 of 249 Old 05-06-2009, 08:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Doug Lung's RF Report had a new article on this as well last week:

SBE Opposes Loosening TVBD Rules

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/80444

Quote:


SBE said that "the presumption that TVBD testing has satisfied some unspecified and unquantified 'proof of concept' is premised, in part, by certain technical errors in the proceeding." SBE lists the Commission's errors:

Applying the UHF DTV threshold to calculating the required sensitivity for TVBDs operating at VHF high band and VHF low band;
Failure to consider the dipole factor as it applies at UHF;
Lack of criteria for what constitutes a "professional installation" for fixed TVBDs;
Using the horizontal plane azimuth pattern in CDBS for DTV stations, resulting in inaccurate results for DTV stations employing mechanical beam tilt;
Invalid assumption of 3 dB of polarization discrimination since a portable TVBD can have any orientation, and
Lack of a height limit for portable TVBDs.

After outlining the problems with the current rules regarding the protection of licensed services, SBE requested higher power for both portable and fixed TVBDs, elimination of the wireless microphone sensing requirement, removal of restrictions on the use of TV channels 14-20, removal of protection for cable headends outside a TV station's protected contour and allow TV band spectrum to be used for protected Part 15 back hauls.

In conclusion, the SBE called the FCC's white spaces decision "seriously flawed."

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #170 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 12:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This issue has been relatively quiet recently, but I do not expect that WSD/TV-Band issue is going away, especially with articles/comments such as these:

FCC Looks to Add to Airwaves for Wireless

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125493452581671117.html

America's Mobile Broadband Future

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-293891A1.pdf

Excerpt from Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski

Quote:


In any event, the looming spectrum crisis is a fact that has been emerging from the work of the FCC's broadband initiative.

Let's look at some numbers.

Mobile data usage is not just growing, it's exploding. By some estimates it will grow from 6 petabytes per month in 2008 to nearly 400 petabytes per month in 2013.

You don't have to know what a petabyte is to know that that's a game-changing trajectory.

We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month. So we must ask: what happens when every mobile user has an
iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Blackberry Tour or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or
netbooks?

The short answer: we will need a lot more spectrum.

There is spectrum coming online. Counting last year's 700 MHz auction, the FCC in recent years has authorized a 3-fold increase in commercial spectrum. The problem is
many anticipate a 30-fold increase in wireless traffic.

I believe one of the FCC's highest priorities is to close the spectrum gap.

We must promote more efficient use of spectrum. That's why one of my earliest acts as FCC Chairman was the Mobile Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry that the Commission approved in August, a proceeding that includes work on ways the FCC can develop policies and promote technologies to give us greater spectrum efficiency.

This does not give specifics, but I think it's safe to say that the remaining TV bands will remain under siege for the foreseeable future.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #171 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 12:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Every now and then, I check out this website:

http://www.showmywhitespace.com/

to see what they are showing as "free" in my area.

The accuracy seems to be improving, with only 3 channels being listed as "available" for portable WSD/TVBD's in central Orange County (LA area), 22, 25 & 46. 22 and 46 have pending applications and 25 has an analog LP station that I can sometimes receive, along with pending LD applications.

30 and 40 are reserved for wireless microphones and 2-20 cannot be used for personal/portable devices.

I don't know where all this "spare" spectrum is going to come from, but it's certainly not going to be from between TV channels in the LA area. Well, that is unless the practice of leasing data bandwidth by TV stations becomes common. Two stations seem to be trying that out locally already.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #172 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ctdish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mystic,CT,USA
Posts: 1,339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 21
They show 22 as 23 as being available for WSD's at my location. Both have TV channels that can be received quite solidly here. 23 is in the top 10% for strength of UHF channels that come in here.
John
ctdish is online now  
post #173 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 02:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
WFTY surprises me as well. I have been able to receive it with rabbit ears/loop from Mystic, from outside the contour.

The protections aren't nearly sufficient, if they just go by the contour. They certainly aren't going any more than 5 miles outside the contour, as a protected area. My parents' home there is about 8 miles from the contour edge.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #174 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 02:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is another article I found on the subject:

Big Changes In The Frequency Spectrum Cultivate New Wireless Possibilities

http://electronicdesign.com/Articles...eID=21574&pg=2

I found this comment highly flawed, bold emphasis added:

Quote:
Spectrum Bridge chief marketing officer and founder Rick Rotondo indicated that at the Show My White Space site, you can find your area on the map and locate the open channels for WSDs. Tens to hundreds of channels are available, depending on whether you're in the big city or out in the boonies.

3 channels of questionable availability does not constitute tens. I have no idea where "hundreds" comes from.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #175 of 249 Old 10-08-2009, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
How much bandwidth does a wireless channel need, compared to a TV channel?
jtbell is offline  
post #176 of 249 Old 10-09-2009, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Different devices would have different bandwidth requirements, so we will have to wait and see what products are developed.

However, in urban areas, I can see close to the full 6MHz of each "available" "white-space" TV channel being used. There simply isn't enough space to allow a dedicated RF channel to each user in most populated areas.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #177 of 249 Old 10-09-2009, 08:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Microsoft Receives License for TV White Space Research

http://tvtechnology.com/article/88456

Quote:


You may recall Microsoft devices had some problems during the FCC TV band device testing last year. Microsoft now has a license—WF2XBT—to use 174-216 MHz (TV channels 7-13), 512-608 GHz (TV channels 21-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV channels 38-51) “to conduct research and experimentation regarding use of the television broadcast bands (the white spaces).” Operation will be fixed and mobile in Redmond, Wash.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #178 of 249 Old 10-09-2009, 08:38 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Here is another article I found on the subject:

Big Changes In The Frequency Spectrum Cultivate New Wireless Possibilities

http://electronicdesign.com/Articles...eID=21574&pg=2

I found this comment highly flawed, bold emphasis added:



3 channels of questionable availability does not constitute tens. I have no idea where "hundreds" comes from.

That whole "show my white spaces" website is junk. Just about every Tv channel is available to use in my area. So when some idiot say uses RF 27 I'll not longer be able to get in WKRN because this website is run by idiots.
BCF68 is offline  
post #179 of 249 Old 10-09-2009, 06:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
kb7oeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For Phoenix it shows channel 40 available but there is a low power digital MTV Tr3s there.
kb7oeb is offline  
post #180 of 249 Old 10-10-2009, 08:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
It's interesting how the article says that the "spaces" are there to prevent interference, then says that they are "available" for use.
If they "won't cause interference", then why not allocate a few hundred more Digital (FREE) Tv stations on those "unneeded" channels?

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off