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

'White Space' & DTV topic - Page 8

post #211 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

The Whitespace Database claims these channels are "free" for my location, but they are NOT free:

.

Yes ... I'm sure the WS Database will turn out to be the inverse set of whatever stations are officially "sanctioned" in the local DMA databases used to determine the stations that Sat/Cable can offer in your area.

Nice end-run ... I'm sure your local broadcasters are (secretly) doing their happy dance right now.
post #212 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

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

P.S. High-Speed For All:

If I were a politician I would be pushing for a Congress or State law mandating all phones lines be upgraded to high speed DSL within a year. THAT is the best way to cheaply and quickly get Rural users off dialup and onto faster connections. NOT this wireless nonsense.

The copper lines are already running into every American homes - all that's needed is to install the DSLAM box in each neighborhood to upgrade the speed from ~50k to ~1000k. No need to hire hundreds of thousands of ditch diggers. DSL has a reach of 15 miles, and with a fiber-to-DSLAM-to-phoneline connection, that increases to hundreds of miles.
.
post #213 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

Okay that last post has me confused. Why would locals be happy that I can no longer see them via antenna due to TVBD interference?
.

Consider, if you will, the case of a person who can receive two CBS stations OTA:
One station is 35 miles away (the officially sanctioned station in the DMA) and one is 76 miles away (not sanctioned.) The station at 76 miles is clearly better (1080i, no subchannels) than the one at 35 miles (converts to 720p, plus two 480i subchannels.) The station at 35 miles would prefer that I be forced to watch their crappy product. ... Thus "happy dance" time.
post #214 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Consider, if you will, the case of a person who can receive two CBS stations OTA:
One station is 35 miles away (the officially sanctioned station in the DMA) and one is 76 miles away (not sanctioned.) The station at 76 miles is clearly better (1080i, no subchannels) than the one at 35 miles (converts to 720p, plus two 480i subchannels.) The station at 35 miles would prefer that I be forced to watch their crappy product. ... Thus "happy dance" time.

Except if you someone like me who lives about 70 miles for the closest stations and who will be completely prevented form seeing them. They lose viewers and thus ad revenue.

Here's another scenario the closet Fox station isn't on the local cable line-up for some reason it's not considered the "local" Fox station. Now this white space stuff wipes out all my TV out so now I have to get cable. Now I can't see them at all. This helps them how?
post #215 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

Well at present that's not happening. I get three copies of ABC, CBS, FOX, and CW, and all of them are protected on the Whitespace Database. So your concern has not materialized yet.

Yeah well it says ch 8( PBS ), ch 10( NBC ), ch 15( FOX ), ch 21( MyNetwork ), ch 23( CW ) are all open and ch 5( CBS ) and ch 33( TBN ) are open but can only be used for half power. This databse only listed less than half the channels in my area as actually being used. So so much for the accuarcy of this database.
post #216 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

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?

Exactly. At those locations a TV Band device is going to have to rely on a database that tells it which channels are "in use" for broadcast TV. The outcome depends on the criteria that the database uses for selecting "in-use" channels. The FCC already has a "service contour" criterion, so it's natural for them to use that for a TV-band database.

This of course leaves out in the cold people who can get usable reception beyond the official FCC service contours.
post #217 of 249
Low power stations co-channeled with adjacent market full power stations has already stopped much DXing. White space devices will eliminate the remaining "loopholes".

I should build a very low power pirate digital station and broadcast home movies to my neighborhood! If the FCC gives me any crap about it, I would just say that I consider my transmitter to be a legal white space device! No, I'm not really going to do this, but it would be fun, and it does point out the absurdity of the current approach to the white space issue.
post #218 of 249
Thread Starter 
At my location, Show My Whitespace indicates the following are assigned to wireless mics or available:

3 (wireless mic) - not eligible for a portable device anyway
12 (wireless mic) - weak, but viewable Mexican station - not eligible for portable
22 - pretty much vacant at the moment, but there are apps pending for it
25 - mostly vacant - weak analog
27 - analog LP station
30 - pretty much vacant
40 (wireless mic) - but an LD is ok
45 - LD rec'd
46 - LD rec'd

So, in reality, there are only about 3 current channels that could be used by a WSD here, of the 7 listing as being available. If a local device attempts to use 46, etc., the TV signals will be gonzo. How can I file a formal complaint if that happens?
post #219 of 249
File a complaint against who? The devices are unlicensed, and unidentified...I suspect that any complaints will fall on deaf ears.
post #220 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou! View Post

File a complaint against who? The devices are unlicensed, and unidentified...I suspect that any complaints will fall on deaf ears.

Amen!
post #221 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou! View Post

File a complaint against who? The devices are unlicensed, and unidentified...I suspect that any complaints will fall on deaf ears.

So, if they cause harmful interference, there is no recourse? Wonderful...
post #222 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

So, if they cause harmful interference, there is no recourse? Wonderful...

Look at it this way if channels 31-51 are worth $60 billlon, then if you frustrate most the remaining 10% of OTA viewers to just give up and get cable/sat or do without then you can sell off channels 14-31 for probably another $50 billion or so.
post #223 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Look at it this way if channels 31-51 are worth $60 billlon, then if you frustrate most the remaining 10% of OTA viewers to just give up and get cable/sat or do without then you can sell off channels 14-31 for probably another $50 billion or so.

After you sell the channels off, how do the new owners get rid of the white space devices?
post #224 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

So, if they cause harmful interference, there is no recourse? Wonderful...

Oh...the recourse is to "find somebody with deep pockets, and SUE". I don't know who will be busier...the Interference Investigators, or the lawyers.
post #225 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by weaver6 View Post

After you sell the channels off, how do the new owners get rid of the white space devices?

The database would no longer list the sold off channels as available in the database. Quite easy, actually.

- Trip
post #226 of 249
(1) If channels 25+ are sold off to the Cellular Phone/internet corporations (per Øbama Broadband Plan), they will simply design the cell towers to be backwards compatible with the TV Band/whitespace Devices aka "iPads". They probably use a similar protocol (CDMA or EDGE or GSM) and would meld almost seamlessly.

(2) I think some of ye are misreading the Whitespace report. You are counting VHF channels as "open channels" but these TV Band/whitespace Devices don't use VHF. Note the color of the checkmarks.

(3) The next step in the death of free television would be to convert VHF 7-13 to DAB radio, like they did in Europe. So all we'd have left is those few (20?) stations still on the 2-6 band. Or maybe that would become DAB too.
post #227 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

The database would no longer list the sold off channels as available in the database. Quite easy, actually.

- Trip

Actually, I was thinking of hacked devices, but I guess that discussion was in the other thread.
post #228 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

(2) I think some of ye are misreading the Whitespace report. You are counting VHF channels as "open channels" but these TV Band/whitespace Devices don't use VHF. Note the color of the checkmarks.

They're still allowed for WSDs, just not "portable" ones. Fixed antennas only.

- Trip
post #229 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

(1) If channels 25+ are sold off to the Cellular Phone/internet corporations (per Øbama Broadband Plan),

Do you have to turn this discussion political? These plans have been floating around since and supported by Bush and would be supported by McCain if he had won. So enough already.
post #230 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

(2) I think some of ye are misreading the Whitespace report. You are counting VHF channels as "open channels" but these TV Band/whitespace Devices don't use VHF. Note the color of the checkmarks.

So who cares? So only 7-13 will be used for TV then? What's that 3 or 4 actual channels? And we all know how VHF sucks for DTV anyways.
post #231 of 249
Scientists are probably already working on MPEG8 1024VSB that will allow one 6MHZ RF channel to carry 10 3D super ultra HD streams with 4000P resolution! Or 15 2D 4000P or 50 2D 1080P or 400 2D 480I SD! That way all free tv broadcasts can be packed into channels 2-6.
post #232 of 249
MPEG4 is the latest. It's about twce as efficient, which means it could do 2 HD + 2 SD programs per channel, where MPEG2 can only do 1 HD + SD..... but first we have to get ~20 million homes upgraded with these new MPEG4 boxes. Can you imagine the resulting mess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Quote:


(1) If channels 25+ are sold off to the Cellular Phone/internet corporations (per Obama Broadband Plan), they will simply design the cell towers to be backwards compatible with the TV Band/whitespace Devices

Do you have to turn this discussion political? These plans have been floating around since and supported by Bush and would be supported by McCain if he had won. So enough already.

I only speak the truth. The FCC released their National Broadband Plan to add 500 MHZ to cellular phones/internet and shrink TV by half just recently (July 2010 if I recall correctly). There's no way that Bush could have supported the idea since it did not even exist back in 2008. ----- As for McCain I suspect if he were president, he would oppose the idea as "anti free market" and squash it.

And Obama? Well he immediately went on record that he endorsed the plan when the FCC released it. So my last post is 100% factual. Just as it's 100% factual that Obama is now pushing that all "keys" for all encrypted internet messages be given to the government. (See today's slashdot.org articles.) I apologize that you are bothered by these facts, but I cannot change them.

Final thought: I'm Libertarian and have not voted for any D or R since 1998. So your assumption that I'm anti-D and pro-R is false. I am anti-both.
post #233 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaveng View Post

MPEG4 is the latest. It's about twce as efficient, which means it could do 2 HD + 2 SD programs per channel, where MPEG2 can only do 1 HD + SD..... but first we have to get ~20 million homes upgraded with these new MPEG4 boxes. Can you imagine the resulting mess? I only speak the truth. The FCC released their National Broadband Plan to add 500 MHZ to cellular phones/internet and shrink TV by half just recently (July 2010 if I recall correctly). There's no way that Bush could have supported the idea since it did not even exist back in 2008. ----- As for McCain I suspect if he were president, he would oppose the idea as "anti free market" and squash it. But the truth is I have no idea what he would have done, and neither do you.

And Obama? Well he immediately went on record that he endorsed the plan when the FCC released it. So my last post is 100% factual. Just as it's 100% factual that Obama is now pushing that all "keys" for all encrypted internet messages be given to the government. (See today's slashdot.org articles.) I apologize that you are bothered by these facts, but I cannot change them.

Final thought: I'm Libertarian and have not voted for any D or R since 1998. So your assumption that I'm anti-D and pro-R is false. I am anti-both.

I fully agree with you. This is bad news for free OTA DTV users.
post #234 of 249
In theory, what exactly does one do when "firing up" a WSD?

Would I be running a Wi-Fi hotspot for my neighborhood?

"Broadcasting" a live video feed of my band?

Making a HD-quality Skype call?

I have read much about the WSD, but next to nothing about what the devices will be capable of, and why the FCC is so fascinated with them.
post #235 of 249
Thread Starter 
The FCC seems enthralled with the possibility of WSD's opening up a new "Wi-Fi on Steroids" network, since Wi-Fi has been so successful, but the range is limited.

So, with the "promise" of "long-range Wi-Fi," the FCC wants it for "Mobile Broadband," but WSD's aren't part of the 500MHz they also want to reclaim for Mobile Broadband.

Other applications I've heard about include wireless utility meter reading machines. So, it could be anything I'd guess:
  • Remote controls - garage door openers, car doors, etc.
  • Consumer weather station links
  • Radio controlled aircraft and cars
  • Home electronics control (lights, plugs, sprinkler systems, cordless phones, etc.)

The problem is that TV Band spectrum is scarce in the areas that need these devices most and long range Wi-Fi applications mean more co-channel interference.

Consider this:
  • In some neighborhoods, it's easy to see 10-15 Wi-Fi networks with a stock antenna over the 11 available Wi-Fi channels (~70MHz).
  • Imagine if we instead are competing with 500-1000 neighboring networks over ~18MHz in urban areas?

Someone (the FCC) forgot that longer range generally means that bandwidth is sacrificed, not enhanced. So, we may indeed have long-range, unlicensed Wi-Fi devices, but don't expect them to work much better than an old dial-up modem.

In sparsely populated rural areas, better performance can be expected, but there's no real shortage of bandwidth in such areas already and infrastructure isn't getting built.
post #236 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by kycubsfan View Post

Would I be running a Wi-Fi hotspot for my neighborhood?

The companies that pushed this idea (ATT, Google, etc) want to treat TV channels 14-51 like another wireless internet service, similar to the current cellphone service. Basically you'd turn on your TVBand/whitespace Device, which would be a laptop/iPad/whatever, and it would connect to the nearest celltower using an open TV channel (say 43).

In theory there are other uses like home networking, but domination by the Megacorps for expanded internet will probably be the main use.
post #237 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

Scientists are probably already working on MPEG8 1024VSB that will allow one 6MHZ RF channel to carry 10 3D super ultra HD streams with 4000P resolution! Or 15 2D 4000P or 50 2D 1080P or 400 2D 480I SD! That way all free tv broadcasts can be packed into channels 2-6.

Channels 2-6 would be worthless, unless the FCC (and the electronics industry) clean up the noise and interference on those channels. We'd have to tighten up all the Part 15 rules, eliminate those noisy fluorescent light bulbs, fix all the bad light switches, repair millions of power lines, and probably go to balanced power distribution. The spectrum is a sewer at those (and lower) frequencies.
post #238 of 249
Actually internet devices could handle the VHF noise just fine. Because TV is real-time streaming of video, it can't tolerate a sudden burst of static (like lightning), and breaks up.

But computers don't care. They just flag the corrupted piece of data, and request that a second copy be sent. That might cause a brief 1 millisecond delay in your downloading webpage or file, but not a big deal. I think VHF should be reassigned by the FCC to internet gadgets (rather than take away TV-friendly UHF)
.
post #239 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

The database would no longer list the sold off channels as available in the database. Quite easy, actually.

- Trip

Makes me wonder why the FCC is so excited about TV Band Devices when they plan to take all the UHF TV white spaces away in a few years. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless effectively have a kill switch on these future TV Band Devices.
post #240 of 249
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?

As for the UHF Selloff:

It works like this: "But these devices will be worthless after we sell-off channels 26 and up. We don't want to screw the citizens with devices that will be obsoleted in five or six years." - FCC. "When you're done with the FCC we'll give you a $200,000 year job." - ATT (and others). "Oh. Yeah I'l accept that bribe.... er, I mean.... let's go forward with these whitespace devices. They'll be great!" - FCC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › 'White Space' & DTV topic