Slashdot Mirror
Broadcasters Oppose Wireless Net Service
kaufmanmoore writes "The AP reports that the National Association of Broadcasters is launching ads to target lawmakers over a push by a consortium of technology companies including Google, Intel, HP, and MSFT who want to use unused and unlicensed TV spectrum (the so-called 'white space') for wireless broadband. Broadcasters are airing concerns about the devices creating interference with broadcast television. In a statement, NAB chairman Alan Frank takes a swipe at technology companies: 'While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not.'"
During the football (that's football, not soccer) season games are played every week with running commentary and everything runs just fine.
Then the SuperBowl comes along and everything turns glitchy.
How come broadcasters who think they are the end-all and be-all of reliability can't get this most important of games broadcast without problems?
What do the broadcasters have against this proposal REALLY. They don't honestly think that this will cause interference. What is really in it for them for opposing this? Working with the Telcos now?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Cry me a river, broadcasters. Communications legislation in America crazy-favors the local broadcaster and cable companies (See SHVA/SHVERA). This is just more "I don't wanna do anything new" rhetoric from these whiny network affiliates.
Considering the garbage that these TV companies put on the air waves, I wouldn't mind if OTA television was wiped out entirely. Hell, if the old TV stations still own the licenses on the spectrum, why not convert to wireless TVoIP business models?
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Mr. Broadcaster,
I'd prefer more bandwidth over more TV any day. Many (if not most) of us have cable or satellite now anyway, so you're being marginalized whether you like it or not. Don't pretend that our attempts to distribute more bandwidth to home are what causes your falling profits and "glitches". Wake up - the world is digital, and it's on-demand.
"Gosh, Dad...it looks like we're the first family in the neighborhood to have a TV antenna on our roof!"
...........later, after the family has had their dinner, and Alan's mother finishes washing the dishes, little Alan sits down in front of the Frank family's new Westinghouse 14" ChromaColor television while his father finishes connecting the also new roof aerial to the back of the glowing set.
"Right, Alan - this is the newest thing. Now we can pull in another 4 channels, and one of them is supposed to be showing at least an hour of VibraColor every Friday!"
"While our neighbors may find it easy to put up with ghosting, rolling images and static..." Mr. Frank said to Alan, "...the Franks do not. One day, Son, everyone will enjoy color TV the way it was meant to be. Why, I bet they'll have at least twenty channels fifty years from now. Imagine!"
"And since you're sitting right in front of it, flip the channel to six, Alan...careful - clockwise! Boxing starts in ten minutes! Marge - is that cake ready, yet? All this work & I'm still hungry!."
Allowing others to make use of the white-spaces will create plenty of interference. Because any type of new communication or service will become and indirect competitor, and thus interfer with the broadcasters market and bottom-line.
File under "Poor use of the term "oligopoly.'" There are plenty of independent TV broadcasters. Not so many independent cable providers, satellite TV operators or broadband ISPs.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Satellite and cable are how people get their TV fix nowadays because of the variety and quality of signal. Plus the fed are going to force everyone to go digital come 2009.
Cable companies also oppose municipal fiber internet.
Cry me a river. You had your chance to help. Now get out of the way.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Broadcast Glitch? There have been plenty but the next one can be permanent for all I care. Broadcast and all push media is a waste of spectrum, unable to deliver what users actually want like pull media can.
As a side note, someone who does not know the difference between M$ and Google reliability has to be a M$ user.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I am running for President of the US on MySpace. Vote for me.
My main thrust is lobbiests, they need to go away. The only
lobbies that should exist are those that we all may find ourselves
in, like the lobby for the aged or for the infirm(handicapped).
All the rest need to be outlawed. Period.
I would re-instate the original FCC charter with minor mods to
take into account the technilogical changes that have happened
since the 1900's. I would make the field level for all, and discount
monied interests nearly 100 percent.
Vote for Zoomshorts !!!
Plus I have some really cool fachist(sp) leanings too.
When politicials are talking, they are lying. I lie daily!
You all should feel right at home.
a broadcast TV station that can reach a half a million homes, with a few thousand TVs tuned in at any given time. How could "pull" save any spectrum?
Because half a million people don't want to watch 99% of what's broadcast, broadcast is 99% waste. People put up with "I Love Lucy" when there was nothing else. Pull gives people the power to watch what they want, when they want so it can be 100% efficient.
"pull" would be completely impractical for TV and radio broadcasts over-the-air - how would the TV request a particular channel?
The same way you watch YouTube in a coffee shop or on your iPhone. Well, you might want to P2P it out through a mesh or cell system, but the previous examples should demonstrate to you that it's easy enough.
I can't imagine anything more expensive and wasteful than the $500,000 broadcasting license the FCC charges to allow people to pollute precious public spectrum with megawatts worth of "I Love Lucy". The principle is general regardless of media - push is wasteful, pull is better.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Anything the broadcasters can do, a packet network can do better. A new wireless broadband network which spanned the country threatens to not only provide entirely new services which could beam a Star Trek like future right into your pocket, but also to slurp the last bit of creme from their audiences. The broadcasters know they are not innovative enough to survive a technology revolution like this. They will be relegated to milking the declining revenue streams from their aging content libraries, until, finally, they are no longer relevant and have no influence. They will be bought by Google or some upstart that hasn't been founded yet.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Just a thought, maybe it's because the initial demo by those companies created plenty of interference? It's easy to take a jab at the broadcasters, but I'd be worried there too. Yes, it can be designed to minimize interference, but I too would first like to see the model which indeed does that.
Then those companies said, basically, "yeah, well, you should ignore that 'cause the device was just deffective." Well, then show me the model which isn't. Also, did they test it? If they can't take a demo to the FCC seriously enough to have a fully tested prototype, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence... yet.
Also show me that you've fixed that mode of failure. If a device can just fail in a mode that jams two adjacent TV channels, I'd worry too.
To give an example from another wave band and type, imagine that a disco opens across the road from your house. Yes, it can be soundproofed to hell and back, but I'd like them to do that first, not just remain at the "it could be done" stage. If the first test could be heard from a mile, dunno about you, I'd probably be at the head of the medieval mob with torches and pitchforks trying to get them out of town.
And, honestly, the computer-related companies _do_ have a track record of pushing unsafe or untested stuff out the door. Tell anyone who's seen a Windows computer get pwned in 10 minutes flat after connecting to the internet that they should _totally_ trust MS to have their broadcasting equipment fail-safe.
Google is any better only because they stuck to the "but it's only a beta!" defense for how many years now? In any other tech company, going productive with a beta would be called irresponsible. My boss would probably have my head for lunch if I told him "it's just a beta" about a version that got deployed.
At any rate, it's again a culture that doesn't inspire confidence when it comes to other domains. If they can run their search engine as a beta and tweak it as it goes, more power to them, but it's not a model I'd want in something that broadcasts stuff. Or generally in anything that involves a physical product. If their page rank algorithm fails it's just a "teh oops" moment, and they'll tweak it some more again. If such a broadcasting device fails, it jams two adjacent TV stations. It's just not the same thing.
Heck, even in software it becomes an unworkable model if you move out of the free-services-over-the-net arena. If you shipped an OS by the "it's just a beta" philosophy, you'd probably do worse than even MS. Remember, MS at least has the policy of never shipping with known bugs. But even just the unknown ones caused the pwnage-fest when connected to the Internet. Now imagine it shipped as a beta.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Broadcasters can whine about this and try to convince lawmakers (most of whom are tech-dumb lawyers) that this is all about protecting the radio frequency spectrum, but this is BUNK, Just as the FCC claims its regulation of computers is about protecting the spectrum is also BUNK.
If the FCC was REALLY about protecting the spectrum, then they would require some of the worst RF noise emitters (electric razors, light dimmers, lawnmowers, etc.) to be certified. There is a lot of money and prestige in regulating computer technology and none in regulating cheap low-tech devices. As long as they regulate important whizz-bang things like TV, radio, and computers, congress sees reasons to fund them at current levels. If they were the regulators of razors and light dimmers they might have less respect and lower budgets.
Similarly, the broadcasters are not worried about the spectrum (which sounds important and high-tech); This is about trying to keep from losing even more viewers (and the associated ad and/or subscriber revenue). Everybody knows that younger people are getting more of their entertainment from interactive web-based sources (news from the web, online games, etc) and this trend will likely SKYROCKET if low-cost high-speed net access becomes too available. Any roadblock they can throw-up will help hold back the tidal wave of losses.
Watch-out whenever somebody tells you that he, like some knight in shiny armor, is a defender-of-the-spectrum, (defender of the faith... protector of the realm... ) and all that stands between you and electromagnetic chaos. If he has a financial interest in the outcome then he probably is in it for the cash.
1. NAB opposes [anything new].
2. TV studios oppose {anything new].
3. RIAA opposes [anything new].
4. Music studios oppose [anything new].
5. MPAA opposes [anything new].
6. Movie studios oppose [anything new].
7. FCC [still hasn't got a clue]
Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Even on the cable/FiOS networks, and switch to "switched" (or packet) video entirely.
Think of it this way; how many hours of the content that is streamed out to the population actually gets watched, versus the number of hours pumped onto the airwaves, or into cable/fiber networks?
On Comcast, I get 20+ HD channels, 200+ regular channels, with the bandwidth of ONE regular (non-digital) channel allocated to my ENTIRE NODE for internet access (50-400 people, give or take).
If all those channels were allocated to data, with packet video streaming through the node, there would be much more room for everything.
It's the same with the airwaves.
Change _everything_ over to MPEG4, make everything packet based, and watch the available bandwidth skyrocket. It's not like the FCC isn't already forcing everyone to change their analog TVs to digital TVs. And it's not even gov't interference in the market; spectrum allocation is already done entirely by the government, and is currently monopolized by regional players.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I am afraid I actually agree with him.
Background: As an ex telecommunications engineer I know about reliability; as a radio ham I know about interference.
With that background, I am afraid it seems to me that he may have a good point that some industries tolerate failure (Vista bluescreens on me several times a month), while others do not - your (wired) phone, for instance, always works. A public telehpone switch or a TV transmitted do not need "reboots" - a reboot of a phone switch can take hours, so it is engineered to not need them.
So while there is a legitimate question about the validity of broadcasting TV, the fundamental point, that while it exists interference should not be tolerated, is valid. It took decades to get to reliable TV transmission, and that can all bre broken very quickly.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>