AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › 'White Space' & DTV topic
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'White Space' & DTV topic - Page 7

post #181 of 249
10/10/09 at 11:56am
I checked the showmywhitespace database for my location and then found that it doesn't show
correct results for my son's location North of Temecula CA (70-mi SE from Mt Wilson, N of L.A.),
which is his ONLY source for network programs.

It shows ALL channels being "free" for WSD, even nearby San Bernardino and Ch12 (2 miles away).

First tip-off the database is hozed: the map still displayed MY location in San Diego, rather than his.
Apparently it doesn't "know" where his address is, even though his home has been there
for well over 5 years now.... Correct response should have been "Address Not Recognized".

============================================
I submitted a trouble report via their "Contact Us" link....let's see if they do anything.....

===========================================
LAT/LONG coordinates yield more believable results: Ch22, 46 & 50 are reportedly "free", although
each has one or both adjacent channels already occupied by DTV stations, and hence may not be usable.....

ALSO, each of the above have low power DTV applications pending for locations on
Mt Wilson and beyond..... WHAT WHITE SPACES?????
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #182 of 249
10/12/09 at 8:51am
I've been perusing through the visual coverage maps at http://www.ShowMyWhitespace.com and have come to the conclusion that this site is conservatively holding to the coverage maps posted at the FCC.

I believe they are completely discounting 2-edge reception areas.
Reply
Reply
post #183 of 249
10/12/09 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 View Post

I've been perusing through the visual coverage maps at http://www.ShowMyWhitespace.com and have come to the conclusion that this site is conservatively holding to the coverage maps posted at the FCC.

I believe they are completely discounting 2-edge reception areas.

Unless something is done, they will destroy fringe reception.
Reply
Reply
post #184 of 249
10/25/09 at 8:42am
I had been wondering what was causing the strange interference I've seen intermittently on several channels when I found this forum and watched some of the videos. I have to believe what I have experienced is due to "white space" devices. All channels I've observed the breakups on maintained a steady and adequate signal strength when the breakups occurred. What I saw was just like what is on the videos. Anyone else been experiencing this? And what can be done to stop it?

oz
Reply
Reply
post #185 of 249
10/25/09 at 11:26am
The first white-space wireless network has just started operation in Claudville, Virginia:

Press release (PDF)
Case study (PDF)
Reply
Reply
post #186 of 249
10/25/09 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onezero View Post

I had been wondering what was causing the strange interference I've seen intermittently on several channels when I found this forum and watched some of the videos. I have to believe what I have experienced is due to "white space" devices. All channels I've observed the breakups on maintained a steady and adequate signal strength when the breakups occurred. What I saw was just like what is on the videos. Anyone else been experiencing this? And what can be done to stop it?

oz

There are few white space devices in operation. I'd make another guess.
Reply
Reply
post #187 of 249
10/26/09 at 9:39am
Tower Guy, so what's your other guess?
Reply
Reply
post #188 of 249
10/26/09 at 5:35pm
Co-Channel or Multi-Path Interference will cause viewing loss. Co-Channel will definitely give you a stable "Signal Level" even though you don't have any viewable data.
Reply
Reply
post #189 of 249
10/27/09 at 8:26am
Ok, what I was seeing were sporadic horizontal bars and random pixelation with some sound breakup and occasional picture freeze. I saw it on VHF Ch 13 PBS and also and a couple UHF channels (I forget wich ones). It is sporadic, not present all the time. I have a Wingard AP-8275 pre-amp with the FM trap on. We live near a school and a fire house and I suspect this is where it is coming from. Any more guesses?
Reply
Reply
post #190 of 249
1/9/10 at 7:22am
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/68654

This had to be part of the "master plan."

First, after DTV, I've lost over 1/2 my channels and I live about 30 minutes from Pittsburgh.

Second, the FCC abandoned their White Paper DTV plan when they failed to require Firewire which supported DVHS. They got rid of DVHS with that action.

Third, I don't see why the FCC would want to keep OTA TV out there considering the alternative uses for the bandwidth.

I have to laugh, basically OTA TV has been, or is being stolen from the American People and no one really cares even though they are paying $100-200 per month for Cable and Satellite.

Maybe they'll eliminate the Post Office next, huh?
Tom
Reply
Reply
post #191 of 249
6/16/10 at 9:45am
Thread Starter 
Remarks of Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker
Maintaining a Spotlight on TV White Spaces Progress

With the threat of further spectrum reductions, continued White Space discussions seem to be adding insult to injury.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-298832A1.pdf

Quote:
Smart City. Of course, all communities can benefit from using TV white spaces to bring broadband to their citizens. For example, creative “Smart City” applications, such as meter reading and remote monitoring, offer better services and save money. While fiber networks support municipal applications, there are still challenging locations where it is impractical to lay fiber. Wireless technologies offer the answer, and when deployed in the lower frequencies of the TV bands, they offer significant propagation advantages over other wireless solutions.

I can't imagine there will be any "smart cities" in the LA area, etc. There's hardly any available spectrum as it is, without further reducing the UHF TV band.

Quote:
Three Areas in Which to Go Forward.
As I see it, we need action in at least three areas. First, we need to finalize the plans for the TV bands and provide the direction that industry needs to plan for the future. I hope we can do this in a way that does not prolong the deployment of devices in existing TV white spaces. As we move forward, we must respect the rights of all parties. We must be sensitive to the fact that manufacturers and service providers need clarity and predictability to design and deploy compelling and economically viable devices and applications.

Second, we must encourage the further development of spectrum sensing technology and establish the testing procedures for the “proof of performance” standard for such devices.9 Spectrum sensing has the
potential to help maximize our use of available spectrum and make possible applications and devices that are not feasible with the database alone.10 As the Commission recognized in the Whitespace Order issued in 2008, sensing technologies can materially enhance the capabilities of dynamic spectrum access technologies.11

Finally, there is the data base.12 We have the luxury of adopting policies that are visionary and progressive without rebuilding an existing system. We need to start with a spectrum inventory—we don’t need to wait for Congress, so I hope we get started with that soon. We need an innovative, interactive and user-friendly data base that will not only serve the TV white spaces but also other spectrum bands, including government spectrum and NATO bands...
Reply
Reply
post #192 of 249
9/1/10 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
WSJ: FCC to Move on Final White Space Rules

TV Technology Comments:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/105846

From WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ch_LEFTTopNews

Quote:
WASHINGTONTechnology and telecommunications companies could soon get access to unused TV airwaves, allowing them to introduce new wireless gadgets and services, under rules that Federal Communications Commission officials are close to putting into final form.

Some of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's top aides have met with broadcasters and other interested parties in recent weeks to discuss the remaining obstacles to freeing up the vacant spectrum between television channels, known in the industry as "white spaces." The issue could come to a vote as soon as the agency's September meeting. Mr. Genachowski said earlier this year that he wanted the matter resolved by the end of September.

This article did not require me to login, so it should be publicly available. Let me know if there are any problems.
Reply
Reply
post #193 of 249
9/1/10 at 11:27am
I've seen at least one instance of our apartment building's "Smart Meters" going in to some weird "continuous respond" mode, where they chirped all the way across the shortwave bands, one after another, for days.
Reply
Reply
post #194 of 249
9/1/10 at 11:39am
In Aledo IL, the smart meters are now installed. However the city well is pumping 60,000 gallons more water (per day) than the meters are showing. A shortage existed before the new meters, but not this much. I believe the city thought this would solve the problem. I expect a rise in my water bill soon.
Reply
Reply
post #195 of 249
9/16/10 at 11:20am
Thread Starter 
From ABC News:

Wi-Fi on Steroids: Make Room for More 'White Space'

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wi-...ry?id=11624796

Quote:


Imagine popping open your laptop or firing up your hand-held anywhere you happen to be and, presto, instantly showing five full bars of muscular Wi-Fi service.

There'd be no need to scurry off to find a Starbucks, or a McDonalds, or any other place with a Wi-Fi hotspot. You'd be in a Wi-Fi hot-zone, or maybe even a Wi-Fi hot-region.
...
Wi-Fi technology is designed for very short-range use; in your home, office or at the local coffee shop. Signals at the lower-end of the "white space" spectrum, around 700 megahertz, can travel long distances, muscle their way through walls and create a much larger Wi-Fi-type hot spot.
...
Broadcasters, especially in densely populated areas with many TV stations, are worried that chit-chat along the "white space" cyber highways will interfere with their transmissions. Ironically, it was the switch from analog to digital signals by television that freed up the extra "white space."

As before, the loss of 52-69 and the limited utility of 2-6 are ignored yet again. 52-69 are NOT White Space channels. 700MHz is above 51, the highest eligible WSD former TV channel now.

Page 2 purportedly shows a picture of "white space," but DTV broadcasts look like that too on analog mode. On my Sony TV, I can usually tell the difference between a truly blank channel, such as 37 and an occupied DTV channel such as 36.

It's the same old story and WSD's will be vaporware, at least in the areas with the most people, unless broadcast TV is totally removed. But if that happens, TV channels will be sold at auction to companies to sell it back to us anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #196 of 249
9/16/10 at 11:55am
Thread Starter 
From eWeek:

FCC White Space Plan Isn't Exactly WiFi on Steroids

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastr...oids-253860/1/

Quote:


...
Currently, the FCC is planning to require buffer zones around areas where such licensed users operate, which means that the white space use in Manhattan could have a big blank area around Broadway because of the number of wireless microphones used in the theaters. Imagine, if you will, the confusion that might be caused if you take your wireless Internet device into one of these buffer zones and in the process manage to take Lady Gaga off the air during a concert.

Adding to the difficulty of allocating chunks of spectrum to digital communications for broadband is the fact that at least some of the white space allocation is going to be location-specific. In addition to the Broadway problem mentioned above, those guard bands exist only in some areas. It's not a stretch to find that the assigned frequencies are not nationwide, but instead are a collection of frequencies that every mobile device must find in order to work. How that might function remains a mystery.

And of course, this isn't WiFi at all. It's actually a data service operating at a much lower frequency than WiFi that has better range and building penetration characteristics than WiFi, but also greater exposure to interference. For users, it'll seem like WiFi, but it's not. In other words, it's not a solution for iPhone overpopulation. Worse, these frequencies will be allocated for such purposes only in the United States. Everywhere else in the world, they're being used for digital radio. So if you do have a mobile device, it'll only work on those bands in the United States.

In some ways, the white space solution is a much better solution for fixed wireless than for mobile. It also seems that the FCC realizes this and is already questioning cable companies about the pricing plans for such frequencies.

Fortunately, even if it's mostly fixed wireless, it'll provide a badly needed solution for high-speed data access for underserved areas of the United States, especially rural areas, and in economically distressed areas that are bypassed by the cable companies. If that's the only thing it accomplishes (and surely it won't be), then it's a good thing.

The last paragraph sums up what will likely be the only practical use for WSD's.
Reply
Reply
post #197 of 249
9/16/10 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

The last paragraph sums up what will likely be the only practical use for WSD's.

A common misconception. There is no shortage of spectrum available in rural areas, only a shortage of money to build out existing spectrum. In my area, there's tons of spectrum, even towers built and ready to go and fiber right to the base of the towers, and nobody wants to build the last bit of it.

WSDs are a solution desperately searching for a problem.

- Trip
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 249
9/16/10 at 10:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

The last paragraph sums up what will likely be the only practical use for WSD's.

You mean other than finally killing off those pesky "out of market" TV signals? Frankly, I'm surprised the broadcast TV powers-that-be aren't begging for WSD.
Reply
Reply
post #199 of 249
9/17/10 at 12:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

A common misconception. There is no shortage of spectrum available in rural areas, only a shortage of money to build out existing spectrum. In my area, there's tons of spectrum, even towers built and ready to go and fiber right to the base of the towers, and nobody wants to build the last bit of it.

WSDs are a solution desperately searching for a problem.

- Trip

So, the areas that could have the most spectrum for WSD's don't need it as other spectrum is already available for the purpose? What bands?

In other words, cities could use it, but don't have the spectrum available, while rural areas have spectrum available, but don't need it?
Reply
Reply
post #200 of 249
9/17/10 at 3:56pm
UHF TV Band has advantage of RANGE compared to CellPhone freqs.
If they can use a frequency that is HALF the CellPhone freq, they can
DOUBLE the range between Cell Towers....which means ONE-FOURTH
as many total Cell Towers to cover a flat earth area, if same ERP...

But this is somewhat simplified: it's easier to build higher Gain antennas at higher freqs,
but higher power amplifiers are also probably less expensive at lower freqs...
Note that one argument cancels the other....

And perhaps UHF propagates into buildings better than CellPhone freqs.....

Whatever....the National Broadband Plan said there is a "NEED" for 500 MHz
more spectrum....which has to come from somebody.....but the rationale for
this is highly suspect....hence the FCC was tasked to conduct an inventory of
who is using (and no longer using) the existing spectrum allocations...which
will apparently take many years to complete (really????).....

Every American is expected to "NEED" a multi-megabit/sec WIRELESS connection
so that they can watch HIGH-DEFINITION video on their 3" SmartPhone screens
and so they can conduct HIGH-DEFINITION two-way video conferences while riding
the bus/train, walking down the sidewalk, sitting at home and/or driving a car
instead of texting/talking like we do today.....Jump from 8 kbps to 8 Mbps....

It would make more sense to recalculate the WIRELESS spectrum "requirement"
presuming that most people are either at work or at home and are connected
to an IN-HOME Wi-Fi (My "N" is 300 Mbps) that is then connected to some sort
of high speed wired/fibre connection....and any new WIRELESS "requirement"
is strictly for commuters (very few of whom "need" Hi-Def) and phone users
(talking, web surfing and NOT watching HDTV or downloading GigaByte torrent files).
Personally, I wouldn't have any problem if Smart Phones only supported two-way
video conferences (e.g. Skype) as they do today....via local Wi-Fi connection to cable.

I can envision some people getting a Full-Wall Super-Hi-Rez HDTV so they can
connect for hours at a time to....grand-kidz....girl-friend....ummm...evenhotterGF....
or simply connect to a large number of Hi-Rez webcams pointed to scenic spots,
like Hawaii, the Alps, Great Barrier Reef....wait a minute, we can already do that...
Easy to do on Cable....so why does it have to clog up the scarce WIRELESS freqs??????

I have no doubt there is a "NEED" for much higher data rates....I just don't think it
all needs to be WIRELESS from a sparsely populated set of WiMax Towers to each
and every person in the country....esp. with the ready availability of UNSECURE
Wi-Fi entry points pretty much everywhere I ever needed to fire up a laptop....
If a simple, higher data rate Wi-Fi system is needed to accommodate more users,
then they should have split out that particular problem from the TV Band fiasco......

If the RURAL market was the only problem they were trying to solve (as WSD was
originally envisioned), assigning a handful of open channels would be fairly easy
(avoid adjacent channels and hopefully next adjacent) and this process could have
been approved already.....but they're trying to get it approved for ALL LOCATIONS,
which means taking over a significant portion of the TV UHF Band.

It appears that they are now looking for a contiguous part of the TV UHF Band....
probably due to the WSD interference problems identified in analysis & tests.
So who is going to pay for THAT to happen???? Stations are still paying for the
recent change to DTV.... You don't just dial up a new transmit frequency....the
antennas all have to be REPLACED....AGAIN....at great risk to life and limb....

The current plan appears to be to simply buy out the marginally profitable stations,
which would probably be mostly Religious, foreign language and ethnic programs.
[Who are complaining about a perceived threat of being shut down.....]
Perhaps "they" are thinking that these programs can simply be multiplexed onto
some other "underutilized" frequency....but in the L.A. area, these stations aren't
carrying just one program....they are carrying a fairly full mix of programs....
And apparently is only the first step before REPACKING the frequency assignments....
For some stations, this would mean a THIRD channel change.....where did it go????

But that still wouldn't solve the WSD interference problems, esp. in Urban areas....
FCC Tests proved...WSD devices will interfere with nearby Cable/Sat systems!!!!
[Cable uses ALL TV Band freqs, and now extends to 1.5 GHz for MoCA.]

THERE ARE NO WHITE SPACES ON CABLE!!!!!

PS: Sure the FCC could dictate that WSD (towers) could not be located near
Broadway.....but that doesn't provide protection for all the other TV Band wireless
mic user locations....they're at most sports venues, most live entertainment venues,
many high schools, many colleges, many Hotels with meeting rooms & many churches.
So in many Urban/Suburban areas, the best location might be in the next county....
Reply
Reply
post #201 of 249
9/17/10 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

So, the areas that could have the most spectrum for WSD's don't need it as other spectrum is already available for the purpose? What bands?

All the 700 MHz stuff, for starters. Plus the unlicensed 900/2.4/5.8 GHz bands. My local ISP is on a small segment of 900 and backhauls on 2.4, but there's plenty of room for competitors.

Plus, most of the cell bands in 1.9 GHz are vacant. I think all six blocks might be vacant.

- Trip
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 249
9/18/10 at 8:56am
I would also like to see a spectrum "NEED" recalculation assuming the WSD Towers
are TRANSMIT-ONLY and the reverse links (incl. low-rez live videophone) are via
the existing (or expanded) CellPhone frequencies. And In-Home "WSD" devices would
also use the existing (or expanded) CellPhone frequencies, like "Wi-Fi" devices.
Then the in-home interference problem is dropped back into the lap from which it came.....

Chapter 5 "Spectrum" in the National Broadband Plan simply repeated the "claims" of various
cellphone companies that they expected their data rate requirements to dramatically increase
in the upcoming years. But I doubt that their DETAILED studies are available to the public:
http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/
Has anyone seen an INDEPENDENT spectrum "Need" study with details & assumptions????
Each cellphone company MIGHT be assuming that they each take over the entire market,
which could inflate the total by a factor of.....three? five? ten?
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 249
9/24/10 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 
FCC FREES UP VACANT TV AIRWAVES FOR SUPER WI-FI TECHNOLOGIES

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-301650A1.pdf

Quote:


The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second MO&O) adopted today resolves numerous legal and technical issues. Notably, the Order eliminates the requirement that TV bands devices that incorporate geo-location and database access must also include sensing technology to detect the signals of TV stations and low-power auxiliary service stations (wireless microphones).

OUCH!!

Considering that I can receive most Mt. Wilson LD's from outside the contour and now KPMR from very much outside the contour, this is extremely bad. I know that many parts of the country, such as the East are much more affected than the West, however.
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 249
9/24/10 at 3:17pm
Thread Starter 
Here is where the Order itself can be found:

SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands
Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-10-174A1.pdf
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 249
9/24/10 at 10:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Considering that I can receive most Mt. Wilson LD's from outside the contour and now KPMR from very much outside the contour, this is extremely bad. I know that many parts of the country, such as the East are much more affected than the West, however.

But... considering the very low signal levels outside a TV station's protected contour, and that we have to use large roof-mounted antennas to receive them, is it even possible for a small TV band device to detect them with a built-in antenna?
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 249
9/24/10 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtbell View Post

But... considering the very low signal levels outside a TV station's protected contour, and that we have to use large roof-mounted antennas to receive them, is it even possible for a small TV band device to detect them with a built-in antenna?

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, but I think the concern that the OP has (and myself as well) is that somebody will set up a "WhiteSpace" device near his location which will be just strong enough to shred his "unprotected," distant digital TV reception.

Frankly, I don't think anyone on this forum actually cares whether the Whitespace device will work under those conditions.
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 249
9/25/10 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, but I think the concern that the OP has (and myself as well) is that somebody will set up a "WhiteSpace" device near his location which will be just strong enough to shred his "unprotected," distant digital TV reception.

Frankly, I don't think anyone on this forum actually cares whether the Whitespace device will work under those conditions.

That's not what he is saying. He's saying that even if the device has the hardware to be able to scan for frequencies being used for TV, so that device can avoid using said frequnecies, such a device would not be like to detct them. As he pointed out if one needs a rooftop antenna to just barely pick up these signals how is a little device with an internal antenna going too?

This is where the problem lies. I have maybe ONE channel in my area where such a small device might be able to pick up a signal. That doesn't mean that's the only channel that can come in. So that means a users of a whitespace device could inadvertently use a frequncy being used for TV. And when that happens how does one go about finding out who is doing that? And what can you do about it? Complain to the FCC and what MONTHS or longer for a response?
Reply
Reply
post #208 of 249
9/25/10 at 8:53am
^^^ Same result. We are left with a local WS Device operating on a channel used by TV broadcast ... probably shredding said TV signal in the process.

With this ruling, the FCC is essentially saying that you no longer have the "right" to receive "distant" OTA TV signals.
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 249
9/25/10 at 8:54am
The Whitespace Database claims these channels are "free" for my location, but they are NOT free:

22 WNJS at 70 miles
27 WGTW (TBN48) at 50 miles
31 WPPX (ION61) at 50 miles
39 WLVT (PBS29) at 60 miles
44 WMCN (ind.44) at 70 miles
45 WOLF (FOX45) at 70 miles
49 WGAL (NBC8) at 45 miles
50 WNEP (ABC16) at 70 miles
50 WDCW (CW50) at 60 miles
51 WGAL (NBC8) at 10 miles

For most of these stations I don't care if the kid next door turns-on his iPad and starts broadcasting over top of them, but if he did over NBC-8 or ION-61 or TBN-48, then I would be pissed. I would lose 3 stations but a total of 10 channels - 25% of my current number!!! And it wouldn't be the kid's fault. It would be our incompetent Union government. A "cockup" indeed.
.
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 249
9/25/10 at 9:13am
As far as Wireless Microphones go, I foresee the day when you will go to a concert, read a sign above the stage, and dial up that address on your iPhone. THAT will be the sound you will listen to. No amps, speaker towers or speakers needed.

Boooooring. (Might as well just stay home and download it.)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical

AVS Top Picks

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