'White Space' & DTV topic - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 249 Old 10-02-2010, 10:14 AM
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 theaveng View Post

For the whitespace/TVBDs what are the limits on being used directly adjacent existing TV stations? Low wattage I assume. Are they only able to broadcast a short range, like one room or one house?

For the portable TV Band Devices operating on channels 21-36. 38-51 the power limits are 40 milliwatts ERP on adjacent channels and 100 on non adjacent. Even at the lower power level the signal will probably go further than WiFI. BTW Spectrum Bridge lists channel 22 as vacant and available for use in downtown Pittsburgh despite the fact that it is licensed to the fill-in translator of local ABC affiliate WTAE that has been operating for nearly a year.
Sammer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 249 Old 10-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wonder if the whitespace list we've been using is out of date, and will be more accurate after the FCC updates it?

40 mW == how far on UHF band? According to the link below, such a transmitter will cause interference to viewers >25 miles from the Adjacent TV station and block reception for 77% of its service area.

http://www.mstv.org/docs/emergency%2...t%20attach.pdf

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
post #243 of 249 Old 10-02-2010, 12:12 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 theaveng View Post

According to the link below, such a transmitter will cause interference to viewers >25 miles from the Adjacent TV station and block reception for 77% of its service area.

http://www.mstv.org/docs/emergency%2...t%20attach.pdf

More specifically it states that a TV Band Device could interfere with a DTV set within 10 meters (about 33 feet) if the TV broadcast is from twenty-five miles increasing to a set within 50 meters if the TV broadcast is from fifty miles away. IMHO the ERP for adjacent channel use should be no more than 15 milliwatts and a maximum of 40 for non-adjacent use would really help prevent cable ingress.
Sammer is offline  
post #244 of 249 Old 10-06-2010, 04:50 PM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here are some interesting quotes from the FCC's Broadband Plan - "Make 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for broadband within 10 years, of which 300 megahertz should be made available for mobile use within five years."
- Broadcast TV (120 MHz)
- 2012/13—Auction
- 2015—Band transition/clearing

- "1. .....the FCC may be able to "repack" channel assignments more efficiently to fit current stations with existing six-megahertz licenses into fewer total channels, thus freeing spectrum for reallocation to broadband use...... 2. .....Establish a licensing framework to permit two or more stations to share a six-megahertz channel..... Two stations could generally broadcast one primary HD video stream each over a shared six-megahertz channel. Some stations are already broadcasting multiple HD streams simultaneously today and claim to deliver "spectacular" signal quality that "consistently satisfies" their discerning viewers..... 3. ..... Determine rules for auctions of broadcast spectrum reclaimed through repacking and channel sharing."
.

I notice on point two they discuss merging two HDs on a single channel but never discuss the SDs. For example if WBFF45 (1 HD/1 SD) and WNUV40 (also 1 HD/1 SD) merge into one station, are they expected to drop their Movie and Music Video channels??? They certainly can't squeeze 2 HDs and 2 SDs in the same channel. Whoever wrote this report has no clue.
.

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
post #245 of 249 Old 10-06-2010, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Unless they intend to count "white spaces" toward that 120 MHz.

- 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 offline  
post #246 of 249 Old 10-06-2010, 05:11 PM
Member
 
theaveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Step 1 would eliminate the whitespaces, since there'd be no open channels left. Instead of channels being spread out, say 8, 10, 21, 23, 32, 44, 48, et cetera the "repacking" would reassign stations to 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. i.e. No space.

Step 2 would take any "left over" stations above 29 and double-them up with the lower numbered stations. i.e. WBAL and WBFF might share the same channel 11 spot.

Step 3 would sell off channels 30-51 in 2013. Therefore what's left of the tiny TV Band will have every channel packed and there'd be no (or almost no) whitespace left
.

My Free TV streams 19 Mbps == 6000 GB/month per channel. No cellphone can do that. WHY kill off this excellent service??
theaveng is offline  
post #247 of 249 Old 10-06-2010, 07:17 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 theaveng View Post

Step 1 would eliminate the whitespaces, since there'd be no open channels left. Instead of channels being spread out, say 8, 10, 21, 23, 32, 44, 48, et cetera the "repacking" would reassign stations to 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. i.e. No space.
.

Don't forget that over 10 major markets have at least 2 channels assigned to land mobile taking them and adjacent channels out of that "repacking". Without MPEG 4 "repacking" doesn't work!
Sammer is offline  
post #248 of 249 Old 01-28-2011, 11:51 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
Whitespace Database Managers Designated by the FCC

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...A-11-131A1.pdf

Quote:
In this Order we conditionally designate nine entities—Comsearch, Frequency Finder Inc., Google Inc., KB Enterprises LLC and LS Telcom, Key Bridge Global LLC, Neustar Inc., Spectrum Bridge Inc., Telcordia Technologies, and WSdb LLC—as TV bands device database administrators, subject to conditions described herein. The TV bands databases will be used by fixed and personal portable unlicensed devices to identify unused channels that are available at their geographic locations. This action will allow the designated administrators to develop the databases that are necessary to enable the introduction of this new class of broadband wireless devices in the TV spectrum.

Comsearch
Frequency Finder Inc.
Google Inc.
KB Enterprises LLC and LS Telcom
Key Bridge Global LLC
Neustar Inc.
Spectrum Bridge Inc.
Telcordia Technologies
WSdb LLC

It remains to be seen what they will be managing if additional spectrum is taken away, though I am still concerned that such devices could easily be operating beyond protected contours, where DTV reception is possible.

Quote:
1. Each of the designated database administrators must supplement its previous filings with sufficient detailed information to indicate how it will comply with the rule changes adopted in the Second MO&O. Amendments to proposals must be received by February 28, 2011. Any of the database administrators that filed separate proposals and now wish to consolidate their operations must submit an updated proposal by this same date. Any database administrators that wish to withdraw their proposals must notify the Commission by this same date.

2. All database administrators must attend workshops to be conducted by OET to address the operation of the databases to ensure consistency and compliance with the rules and the database trials, as described herein. Each administrator shall designate a responsible party who will represent its organization at the workshops and also ensure compliance with all of the conditions herein by February 28, 2011. The first workshop is scheduled for March 10, 2011 at the Commission’s Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland.

3. Each database administrator must cooperate with any steps OET deems necessary to ensure compliance with the rules, including for example security features.

4. Database administrators must agree that they will not use their capacity as a database manager to engage in any discriminatory or anti-competitive practices or any practices that may compromise the privacy of users.

Falcon_77 is offline  
post #249 of 249 Old 08-10-2011, 10:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 18
^ Surprise, surprise(not really), Microsoft also recently added as Whitespace Database manager :

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...-11-1291A1.pdf

P.S. - Hope it's ok to bump this old thread, apologies otherwise ...

In addition to adding the above info, thought some who might not have seen this thread might particularly be interested in some of earlier posts regarding the white space proceeding -- especially those folks following the goings on with the spectrum grab attempt ....

btw, I dug this thread up to remind myself the craziness(perhaps corruption may be a better word) didn't start with the current administration or commission, isn't specific to one political party, and at least goes back as far as the Reed-Hundt days, although if I recall correctly the current Chairman (and/or one of his mentors, Hazlett) was around in some fashion back then as well .....

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

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