Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Network or Weird Al?
coronaride writes "This article over on Wired discusses the current topic of the FCC's regulation of UHF's (ultra-high frequencies). Apparently, UHF channels 52 through 69 are in danger of being taken over by wireless networking!" Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish
joke here.
A friend's mom, Mrs. Weaver, was a contestant on the "Wheel of Fish". What you probably didn't know, but could figure out, is that when you spun the wheel, fish scales and stuff starting flying EVERYWHERE. It was a riot.
PS: I think it was appropriate that the film was shot in Tulsa.
When it begins to interfere with TV we start complaining. But where was the uproar when wireless networking started interfering with radio astronomy?
Like it or not, the FCC does have legal jurisdiction over the airwaves, on the theory that they are a limited resource. Said theory is increasingly becoming untrue as better and better use is made of the airwaves, but it is true that there can only be one station broadcasting on the frequency that matches channel 40 (for example) in a given area. Which means the FCC has every right to demand that these broadcasters make better use of said airwaves - say, by switching to digital broadcasting. One can debate the money (whether the FCC should pay for new broadcast equipment, say), but the broadcasters were told quite some time ago that this was going to happen. Mass disobedience of the law is no reason not to enforce it. (It may indicate something is wrong with the law - see the civil rights protests - but that does not appear to be the case here.)
So, we have telecommunications companies crying because the spectrum isn't being auctioned off to them. If I remember correctly, this is the same telecommunications industry that is declaring bankrupcy, asking for loans, not implementing new types/expansions of broadband, etc. Exactly why do they need it and where will they get the money to pay for it? Something doesn't smell right.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
This perhaps is a better question to ask. On one hand, cable tv is ubiquitous, yet there are plenty of television owners who depend on broadcast VHF and UHF stations. Yes, this is only a limited amount of the UHF band, this might be a precursor to more UHF bands, let alone any current wireless/broadcast channels, being overtaken. Later on, we might find ourselves completely dissolving of old but useful technologies just because some techie bureaucrats want a monopoly of their product.
Why can't we create a technology that uses the UHF bands without television interference? History has shown that modifying technology to accommodate backwards compatibility gives way to a successful alternative to both sides. DSL still lets you talk on the phone while you surf, CD's still work in DVD players, and people with black and white tv's can watch a color broadcast (in B&W mind you) without modifying their sets.
All or nothing technologies have prevailed before, but in some regards, it's a lot easier on the consumer if accommodations to current technologies are made.
-Mr. Fusion
The mention of Weird Al seems to have thrown everyone off topic, and this is a serious topic.
Does anyone care about Spanish TV?
I think the best way to allocate frequency is through auction. True, this will screw some people, but with the billions(?) made by the auction, we could create a Spanish PBS and put it on the lower UHF spectrum. Thus, popular needs are met through the market (which, the artcle implies, would favor wireless networks), and important/informative broadcasting could also get through.
This would be the best mix, IMO, of socialism and capitalism. (Don't be fooled into thinking that any nation isn't a hybrid of both systems)
Someone please remind me again why we need the FCC to regulate all of this spectrum?
Here's my point... It is, I suppose, appropriate for the FCC to regulate interstate or international communications. But RF not aimed at a satellite that is higher than 50 MHz (most of the time) is not going to leave the state (yes, there are exceptions, but neighboring states have been cooperating ever since there *were* states in border issues without any federal intervention).
The band plan in Minnesota has absolutely zero impact on me here in California. Heck, where I am neither does the bandplan in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona or Mexico. Why is it that a bunch of beaurocrats in Washington DC should have complete and total say over issues involving strictly local transmission and reception of radio signals (we can thank FDR and his buddies, of course, for the question of why they do as opposed to why they should)?
Could this mean you could legally start up your own tv station as long as its under 5 watts and has a digital data stream?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?