Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless Network or Weird Al?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the not-a-difficult-decision dept.

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.

8 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Mrs. Weaver and the Wheel of Fish by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Oh sure by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When it begins to interfere with TV we start complaining. But where was the uproar when wireless networking started interfering with radio astronomy?

  3. Comply with the law or else by Winged+Cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.)

    1. Re:Comply with the law or else by Scottaroo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, and the technology to do analog broadcasting is 50 years old. The only reason that the digital equipment is so expensive is that there isn't a second-hand market yet, and the technology isn't old enough to have produced the "all-on-one-chip" solutions that drive down the price of manufacture. Give it a few years and the prices will come down just as they do in any other technological area. By the time the change-over is enforced (does anyone really believe that will be 2007?) the prices will be a lot more reasonable.

      --
      ----------
      If your answer is Microsoft, you obviously didn't understand the question.
    2. Re:Comply with the law or else by wesmills · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You know, I've always wondered why people never name names when they write these long treatises on how life sucks near where they live? Your story would be a lot more credible if you'd have said "I happen to live near such a city (name of city and state) -..." Instead, I'm left wondering where you're talking about and not being able to read up on it further.

      Wes, from Lewisville TX.

  4. But I don't understand... by marian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."
  5. Is Broadcast TV Outdated? by Mr.+Fusion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  6. Legal broadcast tv? by randomErr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?