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?
Karate Master: "And TODAY on Wheel of Fish, what do we have!? Ah! A wireless network! Now....will you keep the wireless network, or will you take what's on...broadcast TV?"
Woman: "I'll take...uh...um..."
[everybody shouting different answers at her]
Woman: "I'll take...broadcast TV!!"
Karate Master: "And now we see...what's on...broadcast TV! What's good that's on...broadcast TV?!"
[hushed pause; they turn on a TV, "Friends" is on]
Karate Master: "NOTHING!! THERE'S NOTHING GOOD ON BROADCAST TV!! STUPID! YOU'RE SO STOOPID!!!"
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
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.)
"It's not like the broadcasters are getting totally screwed," said Carri Bennet, an attorney representing the Rural Telecommunications Group, a lobbyist for wireless carriers in rural areas.
Partial screwing is fine.
-- My HARDWARE, My CHOICE.
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
Insert your Conan the Librarian or Wheel of Fish joke here.
;)
Of course, all the real UHF fans make their jokes about "Spatula City" or the cut scene of "Oh Those Homos!".
If you haven't seen that last one, I suggest you rent/buy the DVD immediately! It's worth it just for Al's commentary alone!
Sen. Hollings wins the "Inane Bill Of The Year" award!!!!!
Applause from audience...
Sen. Hollings gets to drink from the Firehose!!!
Insane cheering from audience...
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I'm sorry, but.... 52-69? Anybody have more than four local UHF stations? Think maybe they could fit all four between 14 and 51?
Comic Book Guy: "There is no Groening in my store."
Sure, at only $20-$60/month, and without those pesky regulations that go along with broadcast TV.
This whole "take the UHF and VHF stations and cut them up" is the entire purpose for HDTV.
You see, the FCC under the Clinton administration (although, admittedly it sounds like a Republican plan, but yes, it was the Clinton administration) wanted to take all of the non-military band and sell it off to cell phone companies and the like to make money for the government. This new taking of outside bandwidth is just Plan B after the fact that the FCC is a bunch of morons and couldn't anticipate that the cell phone industry would find a good compression scheme for the next gen of phones in under six years.
"But I thought the whole RF spectrum was the property of the people?" Someone muses in the back.
"Not when there is someone getting paid," moaned all of the broadcast engineers that had to invest MILLIONS into a non-standard "standard" that has yet to be decided... and costs the end user way too much for the promise of better TV (but not really for most people, because HD signals are so big they have multipath reception problems. Meaning this: you might have a tough time getting a HD signal anyway, at the least it is much more difficult than getting a standard analog signal, and especially in a city).
By the way, some television stations have to broadcast right now in HDTV. Unfortunately, the FCC has yet to decide what the hell that standard should be in the USA. But then again, why should the FCC decide? They (the FCC) have been getting lobster dinners, hot lobbyists, and secret funds jerking around corporate Japan (because NONE of the HD patents are owned by US companies) for years being "indecisive" about the standard. Of course, all of this added expense and lack of vender competition has made all of the local television stations that are privately owned go "belly up." TV stations are FORCED TO PAY outrageous sums of money for an outside patented system that they are unsure whether even 1,000 people have bought in the entire area.
I know a lot about this, because I am one door down from a TV engineer at a broadcast station. As they tell me, it doesn't take long to follow the money to find out where this mess all got started from.
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?
It would be rather complicated to manufacture TVs, radios, etc. if the RF bandwidth weren't standardized... 50 different tv tuners in one would be complicated today, and probably impractical around the time they added the UHF system...
--
Benjamin Coates