Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Publishes "White Spaces" Rules

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the dude-white-spaces-totally-rule dept.

Communications 63

Stellian writes "The Federal Communications Commission adopted a Second Report and Order 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. It's the first time we have access to clear specifications for these devices, dubbed TVBDs — 'TV band devices' by the FCC. The published guidelines allow manufactures to create protocols and build compatible devices, which could be available in 18 Months, according to Larry Page. The full PDF text of this Second R&O is published on the FCC site."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux user's party anthem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25822365)

Drink, puke, pass out
I fucking do it everynite
I wake up in a pool of piss
Can't control my bladder or my alcohol appetite

Sleeping in my piss
Waking up all wet
And when it's time to take a shit
It's bloody fucking red
BURMA SHAVE!

From the article (0, Flamebait)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822433)

"One possible implementation that has piqued manufacturers' interests involves a device that detects wavelengths of light, transmits those signals across a large distance, and rebuilds the image at a remote receiver for viewing by the user."

Am I the only one canceling my cable rather than buy into the BS being fed to me? "It's so much better than your broadcast signal that BY LAW you will be forced to buy into it or give up your existing service." Joy!

Which article? (2, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822575)

I clicked all three links and cannot find the passage you quote. Many of the words in that quote don't even appear in any of the three links. Can you be more specific?

Re:Which article? (2, Informative)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822721)

*WHOOOSH*

Re:Which article? (0, Redundant)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822787)

Exactly.

So Wait (-1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822443)

Is this like a "free speech zone" or "no smoking in the office, in the bar, on your porch, in your car with a child, 20 feet from operable windows, on the beach, etc." for white people?

The FCC's real whitespace is in photographs: (-1, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822463)

The photograph told the story.

It was simple enough. A small handwritten sign that had no doubt been quickly and effortlessly designed in a single moment in the locker room after the game. Rob Limo's sweaty jock-strap was hung with the utmost care slightly above and to the right of CmdTaco's heavily-disfigured face. The heavy ink scribbled on the front stated not a word, but a number - 400. 400 times Rob Limo had ejaculated sperm in Malda's waiting mouth.

400 times. The picture really was worth a thousand words. That and Kathleen Fent's face when she heard the horrifying news: her husband is a homo.

But, there are more than just facts to this story. There's the emotional side, the side not caught in the picture showing only the smiling, disfigured face of Malda, after Kathleen cut his face with a broken glass ashtray.

There's the overjoyed ESR, who once said that many wins only means he's getting old. Too old to keep his shit in from taking RMS's cock in too far...too many times. 400 times.

ESR is far from old by college head coaching/cock sucking standards, but he is extremely successful by any measuring dip-stick.

The photograph told the story, but the single teardrop that escaped and ran down the veteran coach's left cheek filled in the emotion. And - some would say - sperm from Limo's man-meat.

He didn't have to say a word. The teardrop said it all.

When ESR sat down for his usual postgame radio interview with Stallman, Athletics Radio Network play-by-play broadcaster Casey Hogan, he had no idea what was to come. Then Malda came and his life became and unending man-brothel of heathen delight. ESR would never be the same.

University presidents and system admins don't just go around giving out pats on the back and congratulations for minor accomplishments.

This was big. As big as Stallman's meat-sword.

As the congratulatory statements played out, Malda, who calls himself blessed to have the opportunity to coach the game, was overwhelmed. And he cried like a little girl.

And for a moment, just a moment, he allowed himself to enjoy some much deserved satisfaction.

On the road, it's just the old cuckolded coach and his most faithful supporters. The fans making the road trip three hours away over the break are the ones who bleed purple and white (mostly hot, yellowish white cum).

Determination to get the job done, whatever the cost. Determination to be successful by doing the right things, off the court as well as on it.

While the only thing remaining to have evaded the coach thus far in his illustrious career is a national title, he is determined to fix that, too.

Because when ESR is determined, and can finally get off the booze long enough to get it up, there is nothing that can stop him.

The picture spreads the news of 400 AIDs-virus spewing cums.

But it was the teardrop that said it all.

I dont know about all of you but ... (-1, Offtopic)

bizitch (546406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822515)

... reading that just gave me a geekgasm ...

Your first premise is wrong ! +1, Helpful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25822627)

There are NO rules in Amerika. Furthermore, why isn't U.S.A. on the live piracy map [icc-ccs.org] given the bailout of the U.S.A.?

Cordially,
Kilgore Trout

Actually worse than I expected. (5, Insightful)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822699)

So, TVBD's (whitespace devices) can operate on channels 21-51, except 37.
So, wireless mics get 19 channels, minus TV presence. (37 is for radioastronomy)

Unless it's two fixed-location devices talking to each other, then TVBD's can operate on 2, and 5-20. In markets with PLMRS, two channels will be reserved for wireless mics.
Um 2-4? Minus TV?

Except that TVBD's will be allowed to operate without geo-sensing, so they won't have any idea that they're in a PLMRS market.
So, 2? Hello? Is this thing on?

These TVBD's have been shown to interfere with TV at 40mW, and we're talking about devices that operate at 100mW? So the lesson here kids is that you should never bother buying an FCC license. You should just buy the people that make the rules. I can't wait for devices that allow for cheap (free would be better) internet everywhere, but this is not the FCC doing its job. Verizon and AT&T must feel like suckers for pouring money into Auction 73. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (2, Insightful)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822773)

Remember, TV channels are much larger (6mhz) than is needed for audio-only signals.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (4, Insightful)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822923)

Sure. 2 TV channels is 12MHz, and mics need between 100 and 500KHz each, but there's always intermodulation [wikipedia.org] to ruin your day. Also, at a big event, with lots of broadcast coverage, you'll eat up 40 channels in no time. This is going to get really ugly really quickly.

We will have at least one of the following in the next couple of years:

- Interference that affects nearly everyone.
- A somewhat-subjective standard that no devices pass FCC tests on.
- An FCC reversal on this ruling.

All of these are really bad.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823541)

So how's life at Shure these days? You guys hiring?

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832337)

Dude. I work for Sony (and desperately want these devices to work). My wife works for Shure. You can imagine how our arguments about this technology have gone.

Yes, they're hiring. So are we, actually.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25824185)

Or, Mr. Chicken Little, what will actually happen -- the TVBD will not work in your hypothetical crowded venue because there is no open spectrum for it to use.

An since when does broadcast coverage at an event use the open local terrestrial channels? Your scenario is nonsense.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (2, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831749)

Good summary.

Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.

So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 35, 45, 57, 61, or 65 due to TVBDs using those channels.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823233)

The TVBD devices must have a spectrum sensing capability so they can detect the presence of TV transmissions and other wireless devices. If a transmission is detected, the TVBD will switch to a different (unused) channel.

The unlicensed 'feature' is indeed a paradigm shift and some oppose it for the exact reason you describe. But the idea is to milk the cow if no one is using it and to give the cow back as soon as it is required by it's owner, i.e. increasing the usage of scarse radio spectrum.

This new FCC policy has been in development for a long time and much research has been (and still is) carried out. See, for instance, the IEEE DySPAN conference at http://www.ieee-dyspan.org/2008/ [ieee-dyspan.org] .

I applaud the FCC for having the guts to give this a try and I'm sure they will keep a close eye on what works and what doesn't: it is a work-in-progress.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823447)

These TVBD's have been shown to interfere with TV at 40mW, and we're talking about devices that operate at 100mW?

So what do we do? My digital TV reception is already marginal, I can't have it get any worse and still expect to be able to watch TV. If my TV starts dropping out a lot more than usual, how do I demonstrate that it's because of interference? Once I've demonstrated that, what recourse do I have? File a complaint with the FCC? Sue?

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823647)

Frequencies and outputs change at the transition. The first step is to wait until then.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831351)

The only solution I can think to do is monitor your neighbors. The TV Band devices would have to be within 1-2 football fields to overpower a full-strength TV channel, so if you experience interference it's probably coming from next-door or across the street. Once you locate the TV Band device, per FCC rule, they are required to turn it off. They are NOT allowed to continue operation while it is interfering with television (the primary owner of the channel).

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823699)

Oh boohoo. Unlicensed whitespace microphones will now have to play nice, along with everybody else. So sad for you.

SHARE, asshole. You are not so special that your illegal unlicensed use of spectrum you had no business being in in the first place should be protected. It has now been officially opened up to the peons. "Oh horrors, the great unwashed masses have been let into our 'exclusive' playground. There goes the neighborhood."

Shut up.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826547)

These TVBD's have been shown to interfere with TV at 40mW, and we're talking about devices that operate at 100mW?

Under what conditions? This is a good example of a test where you can guarantee success or failure by adjusting the test conditions. Who is paying for the testing and what is the desired result? I can think of multiple ways that the testing conditions can be manipulated to guarantee the desired result.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (2, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831395)

By the time a distant signal reaches your set, it's only ~10 milliwatts. A 40,000 milliwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that. It's more commonsense (40000>>>10) than any real need for testing.

However if you insist upon tests, the ones performed by NAB and the Cable Association show any TV Band device within 1-2 football fields will overpower a broadcast television station. You'll end-up watching digital hash noise rather than the sports game or the latest episode of "Legend of the Seeker".

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (2, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831825)

Correction:

"By the time a distant signal reaches your set, it's only ~10 [micro]watts. A 40,000 [micro]watt TV Band device can easily overpower that."

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25832947)

So let's see here... the National Association of Broadcasters-That-Are-About-To-Lose-Their-Shirts-Because-Of-TVBD's and the Cable-Operators-That-Won't-Be-Able-To-Rape-TV-Watchers-Because-People-Are-More-Amused-By-TVBD's Association are upset by tests that show that these TVBD's will overpower (oh noes!) a broadcast TV signal.

First, NAB is biased against any broadcaster that isn't paying them dues. Second, why the hell do cable operators or their association care what goes on in the land of non-cable TV?

Oh, and 40mW is not 40000mW. Furthermore, a 40mW device at a distance of 300 yards is NOT going to overpower a 40000W device at a distance of 20 or 30 miles.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25843879)

>>>a 40mW device at a distance of 300 yards is NOT going to overpower a 40000W device at a distance of 20 or 30 miles.

You're a twit. If you can't understand simply math, you're also ignorant. Almost all of my stations are 50-60 miles away. By the time a distant television signal travels 50-60 miles, it's degraded to only ~10 [micro]watts. A 40,000 microwatt TV Band device can easily overpower that.

It's commonsense (40000>>>10).

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832453)

The FCC tests were public, and everyone who had any contact with the tests, including Larry Page [informationweek.com] agreed that the devices interfered.

The only ones who called the test a success were the writers of the FCC report. Larry Page was crying foul about the tests being too hard ("rigged") right up until they issued their report because the devices interfered .

These things are going to knock out rural TV and get approved anyway or not get approved. If they don't get approved, we all lose. The bands auctioned off to Verizon and AT&T should have been the white-space playground for unlicensed devices and free networking. If the FCC had wanted to be really forward thinking, they would have opened up airwaves that were actually open.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832723)

TV Band Devices have already been approved. It's only a matter of time until your neighbor has an Ipod or similar internet-capable gadget broadcasting on channels 2 to 51.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832879)

I meant specific devices, but, yes, it is only a matter of time. Me? I'll just watch Hulu, but I understand why this is a bad thing to do.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25833825)

Unless Comcast decides you've passed their threshold as a "bandwidth hog" and they impose a temporary speed limit on you. From what I've heard the temporary speed limit is 128k which makes watching hulu.com impossible.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25836041)

AT&T DSL, but the point is taken. We're being screwed on all fronts.

Re:Actually worse than I expected. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25844049)

Pretty much. Soon you won't be able to access television for free. You'll have to join cable, join dish, or pay extra for non-speed-limited TV streams over the internet.

Al-Qaida No. 2: Barack Obama is a "House Negro" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25822825)

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, using a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect -- along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- "house negroes."

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."

The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.

The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.

Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies he said are aimed at oppressing Muslims and others.

"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.

He said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.

Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was "facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see."

He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."

But Obama's professions of support for Israel during the election campaign "confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims," al-Zawahri said.

Re:Al-Qaida No. 2: Barack Obama is a "House Negro" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823065)

You, sir, are a tool.

Re:Al-Qaida No. 2: Barack Obama is a "House Negro" (0, Offtopic)

pisces22 (819606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823659)

I'm sure this question is asked all the friggin' time but: Why is there no "-n Obliterate" mod? I have mod points and I know that I am supposed to "[c]oncentrate on promoting more than demoting", but some shit just doesn't belong, even at -1.

Erm. (4, Insightful)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822857)

The database will be established and administered by a third party, or parties, to be selected through a public notice process to solicit interested parties.

1. Such a database can't be operated at no (or low) cost.

The locations where wireless microphones are used, such as entertainment venues and for sporting events, can be registered in the database and will be protected as for other services.

2. Registering such devices will most propable cost money to keep up with the expenses needed for operating the database.
3. To save money people won't register their devices.
4. ???
5. Pro...erm... Interference.

Re:Erm. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831427)

Good summary.

Another facet to consider: TV Band Devices don't have to respect neighboring markets. For example I live in Lancaster PA which is protected, but I can also watch Philadelphia and Baltimore..... and a TVBD is free to broadcast directly overtop those non-local channels.

So I might as well kiss Philly and Baltimore goodbye. No more channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61, 65.

Whitespace rules? (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822889)

What is the FCC doing specifying how I indent my code? That's the job of the GCC, isn't it?

Re:Whitespace rules? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822967)

mod parent funny, laughed my ass off

Re:Whitespace rules? (2, Funny)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823229)

in python, whitespace indents you...

Re:Whitespace rules? (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823247)

Didn't you get the memo ? All FCC programming must now be done in Python.

Re:Whitespace rules? (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823927)

What is the FCC doing specifying how I indent my code?

Whitespace is my code [wikipedia.org] , you insensitive clod!

A slippery slope (-1, Troll)

wagr (1070120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25822895)

Next: the RIAA suing me for a song that was downloaded by my neighbor on a channel that just happened to be next to the one my TV was tuned to.

racist fucks (-1, Troll)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823087)

Sure.. the feds can let go of that white space... but the black space... noooooooOOOOoo .. the black space isn't safe to let go from the government.. it unsafe and just not natural. Everybody rise up - LETS FREE THE BLACK SPACE!! DOWN WITH THE FCC!!




Don't ask. I blame the 8 cans of Guinness.


...

Re:racist fucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823471)

Sure.. the feds can let go of that white space... but the black space... noooooooOOOOoo .. the black space isn't safe to let go from the government.. it unsafe and just not natural. Everybody rise up - LETS FREE THE BLACK SPACE!! DOWN WITH THE FCC!!

  Don't ask. I blame the 8 cans of Guinness. ...

What we really need is the first Black Space president... then we will see real change!

Re:racist fucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823531)

Must be a bad week if you're drinking on a Wednesday.

I won't ask.

A growing irrelevance (4, Interesting)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823481)

I know something about this. I am one of the vanishingly small number of people who have set up an ATSC transmitter [youtube.com] other than under FCC part 70 rules.

The sad reality is that 85% of people get their TV from cable or satellite, meaning that TVBDs will have zero impact on them (the cable and satellite companies either get their feeds over fiber or will have no trouble hunting down any source of interference that keeps the head-end from getting a signal, given their budget as compared to the average homeowner).

One of the big time losers in the switch to digital broadcasting are mobile/portable receivers. I have an Insignia 7" LCD ATSC TV, and unless you plug it into a proper TV antenna mounted on top of a building, it's digital tuner is deaf as a post. Insignia stopped making them, probably because as portable devices, they're practically useless. And that's not Insignia's fault. It's simply the nature of the cliff effect. Portable receivers used to get by because they could display a less-than-perfect signal. But digital receivers get perfect reception or none at all. Mobile reception is out because the Doppler effect and dynamic multipath can totally wreck 8VSB reception.

So what's left are people either too cheap or too poor for cable or satellite, or who (like me) are RF hobbyists.

How low does that 15% figure have to go before it's simply cheaper for the government to subsidize lifeline access rates for the poor and auction the rest of the broadcast TV bands off? For how much longer is the public interest better served by broadcast TV rather than, oh I don't know, how about really, really high speed mobile IP (the sort of thing you can get when you set aside a 300 MHz band for the purpose)?

TVBDs that cause interference will be impossible for the average broadcast TV viewer to diagnose. Their receiver will simply go blue-screen. In the past, there were visual clues in the picture condition to diagnose reception problems. But with the switch to digital, it would take a spectrum analyzer [youtube.com] to do the same job. The fact that the FCC would countenance such a situation speaks volumes about how important they perceive broadcast television to be.

Re:A growing irrelevance (3, Interesting)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823617)

The fact that the FCC would countenance such a situation speaks volumes about how important they perceive broadcast television to be.

Which is exactly how it should be. It was something like a decade ago that somebody made the sage observation that America had its data transmission systems completely upside down (for historical reasons only). The huge high bandwidth signals were over the air (broadcast TV) and the tiny low bandwidth signals (phones) were over cables. The populace has been working hard to reverse one part of that state of affairs, buying cellular phones. Shoving the television signal into a wire where it belongs is the next step.

Yes, the next thing that will happen is a Federal Universal Access Fee on cable. Because some dumbass will think it's "fair" that the cable company pass those costs on to the consumer for recovery in 30 seconds of billing, instead of acting like a utility and recovering their costs over decades. But that's another rant...

Re:A growing irrelevance (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824245)

Which is exactly how it should be.

I don't disagree.

The populace has been working hard to reverse one part of that state of affairs, buying cellular phones.

Well, they've been working hard to reverse the other one as well, by signing up for cable and satellite TV.

a wire where it belongs

Well, an alternative to a wire is to move it upwards in frequency to SHF... like satellites have done. Higher frequencies have a much higher penalty for mobile use relative to their utility in point-to-multipoint line-of-sight linking (which is precisely what TV broadcasting involves).

Re:A growing irrelevance (2, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831635)

Let's see. Approximately 18% or 20 million homes watch television over the air, exclusively. Some by choice, some because they are farmers living in Montana or some other rural state lacking wires, and some because they can't afford a $60 a month cable bill.

If the government discontinued broadcast television and instead subsidized Dish locals-only service to everybody, that would cost $11 a month per home. The total expenditure would be $2.7 billion per year. Are you sure we really want to spend that much money??? Over-the-air television doesn't cost the government anything (because it's already there and working).

BTW:

Cellphones suck IMHO. Yes I like the convenience; it's great to be reachable anywhere (I think?). But the cost of that convenience is around $50 a month. A wired phone only costs $10 a month, and the quality of the sound is better. Being just a poor citizen, I prefer the cheaper option.

Re:A growing irrelevance (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25878303)

Are you sure we really want to spend that much money?

Given that the spectrum license fees for that much spectrum might be as much as 10 times that, um, yeah.

Over-the-air television doesn't cost the government anything

In fact, it makes money for the government because they charge the stations fees for their licenses. But the question is whether the public is best served by that spectrum being used as it is, or perhaps in some other way.

Today, it's probably good the way it is, but for how much longer?

But the cost of that convenience is around $50 a month

Today. I've had a cell phone since the mid 90s, and the cost:benefit ratio has maybe not been following Moore's law, but phones and service have been getting cheaper and their capabilities have been growing at remarkable rates.

Re:A growing irrelevance (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826655)

Advances are being made in ATSC receiver technology that improve performance in multipath environments. I wouldn't write off the technology for mobile and portable use. We haven't reached the point where ATSC receiver performance can no longer be improved. Where I live, a cheap ATSC converter box actually outperforms analog TV for weak signals.

Re:A growing irrelevance (2, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826827)

Advances are being made in ATSC receiver technology that improve performance in multipath environments

I agree, for static multipath, but dynamic multipath is going to be nearly impossible to fix for 8VSB. ATSC is, in fact, working on an add-on to support mobile device reception to make up for the inability for 8VSB to stand up to dynamic multipath and doppler.

Re:A growing irrelevance (1)

dbc (135354) | more than 5 years ago | (#25841115)

So what's left are people either too cheap or too poor for cable or satellite, or who (like me) are RF hobbyists.

You left out rural Americans. Those who currently live far from any metropolitan area are going to see their channel choices severely reduced. I suspect my inlaws will have zero choices in television viewing after the switch -- whereas now they get fringe reception from 10 or so stations in various directions, using a decent outdoor antenna.

There is no way any cable company is going to be wiring the area where they live -- there is about one television-owning family per square mile. (I say television-owning, because the families that are packed in greater than one per square mile are Amish.)

Re:A growing irrelevance (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25878193)

You left out rural Americans.

No, I didn't.

Those who currently live far from any metropolitan area

... are satellite TV subscribers instead of being cable subscribers.

What kind of range are we looking at here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823687)

Can anyone make a rough estimate of the range these fixed devices will be able to achieve with the power specified, particularly for wireless networking... I'd love to finally get access to broadband without a several second round trip (satellites are far away and wave's don't like to break the speed limit)

Let broadcast TV die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25824837)

Satellite and cable make far more sense for TV. I have no problem with re-allocating spectrum to better and higher density uses.

Politics (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25829323)

Without broadcast TV, how can we use Fox news to market our political party to the least educated, poorest part of society!? We are talking like millions of votes here, man! Get a hold of yourself!

Oh, shi-

Re:Politics (2, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831679)

FOX News is not on broadcast television. FOX News is a cable channel.

Re:Politics (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25843479)

Well, that just goes to show how little I know about broadcast and cable TV ;)

Re:Politics (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25843929)

Ooops..... spoke too soon. I just learned that FOX Broadcasting will soon offer FOX News on the digital subchannels (X.2 or X.3), which means everyone will be able to enjoy the pleasure of watching middle-of-the-road, hanging-on-the-fence, moderate centrist reporting.

(Instead of socialist-leaning, big-government-loving CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or PBS.)

Live event industry is up in arms (1)

SonicSpike (242293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25860309)

This has screwed many in the live event industry because many of our wireless mics are now unable to be used. Everything from concerts, to hotels, production companies, theme parks, bars, clubs, are going to suffer.

Here is some discussion by my fellow audio engineers on the subject:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/39317/2112/ [prosoundweb.com]
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/39317/2112/ [prosoundweb.com]
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/39629/2112/ [prosoundweb.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?