Slashdot Mirror
White Space Debate Intensifies As Vote Approaches
Ars Technica reports that the debate between broadcasters and white space supporters has intensified after each side recently made inflammatory comments and suggested that science would vindicate their position. Several organizations are pushing to delay the upcoming white space vote, in part because it takes place on the same day as the US presidential election. We recently discussed Google's claim that a test of this system was rigged to fail. From Ars:
"The broadcasters contend that adjacent channel interference would be significant even at the 40 mW level proposed by Kevin Martin. In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 10m or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within 50m from a set could allegedly cause interference. The broadcasters also want several safeguard requirements put on the technology that go beyond the new, lower-power transmission levels."
... Because INTERCAL is just too user friendly.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Perhaps a short explanation of what "white space" is in this context in the summary might be helpful?
Yes I even RTFA to try to figure it out but it already assumed prior knowledge as well.
What's with the mixing of units? Use either 50 miles and 50 yards, or 80 km and 50 m. Mixing imperial and metric units like this, will probably cause http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/25/1449212#the test devices to explode.
As a representative of UltraProfitCom, I must point out that the use of 40 mW transmissions over the whitespace could raise very unpleasant technical issues. For example, it could damage the profitus of the entrenchedplayerus. It may also vastly increase the alternativus that individuals have for data transmission containing dangerous features like competitiveservicus. Left unchecked, these transmissions could also increase the convenientus that people have to do deal with. Clearly, it should not be done.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
"Nobody screams louder than somebody whose subsidy is being cut".
Now, it is politically popular to think about that statement only in the context of bloated, black, cadillac-driving, welfare queens and their giant broods of fatherless criminal children; but such a type, if it exists at all, is chickenshit in terms of real subsidies. Consider rather the broadcasters who have made huge amounts of money, and acquired a great deal of influence, thanks to a government granted monopoly over big chunks of our spectrum.
Tabs
-Dave
Whitespace? Why do they have to be so racialist?
The pseudopumps can cause resonance in the lambda-spectrum. Of course, why should Google care? As long as they "Don't be evil (tm)" they can cause Gaussian fermentation all over the place and everyone will still drink the kool-aid. Nevertheless, Marx will come back to bite them in the end. The solution is pan-spectrum autocompensation, but this would put the FCC out of a job. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
Ihatewhitespace!
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
In an effort to be politically correct, I propose we rename whitespace: allcolorslivingtogetherinharmonyspace
I support 0x20, 0x07 and 0x0a.
The government forced broadcasters to adopt a more limited spectrum, and what we get in return is huge corporations like Google and Microsoft wanting to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Spaces_Coalition]take over the newly freed spectrum[/url] for profit?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Since this is actually my research area, I thought it would be good to give some input here. Part of the controversy is simply due to the language used.
1) "Whitespace" is used in two subtly different senses by people that causes some confusion.
A) From the perspective of the potential new user of the spectrum, a "whitespace" is where the band is clean and so it could be used to deliver relatively high data-rate without having to put out too much transmit power relative to the desired range.
B) From the perspective of the existing user of that spectrum, the above perspective is troubling since it seems to ignore the externalities imposed by interference to others. The existing users' perspective is better captured by the idea of a "spectrum hole" that reflects where a new user could safely transmit without significantly bothering too many existing users. However, spectrum holes are also called "whitespaces" and this causes confusion.
The apparent weasel words "significantly" and "too many" above reflect a real set of engineering-tradeoffs underneath that must be navigated at least partially at the political level.
2) "Interference" is used by people in two different senses and this also causes confusion.
A) Interference is a purely technical concept that describes how performance degrades for a receiver with the introduction of additional signals into the environment. Here also there is some ambiguity because of a distinction between what would necessarily degrade performance even for an ideal or well-engineered receiver and what is feared to degrade the performance of possibly poorly designed or shoddily built receivers.
B) Interference is also an English word that encompasses uses like "you're interfering with my business model by offering a competing service."
Keep this in mind as you read any general articles about this subject. There are real tradeoffs involved in this topic, but sometimes the language used obscures or obfuscates them rather than making them clearer.
You have a 4-digit uid and still use bbcode on /. ?
I guess if the FCC has powers to declare Martial Law, then we all should be worried...
Oh, not THAT November 4th vote. Never mind...
Why not read a op-ed piece from someone who both knows about electrical engineering and doesn't have a vested (i.e. profit) interest in the outcome one way or the other?
EDN editor Paul Rako wrote this edotiral recently, "White spaces and black hearts".
In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 10m or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within 50m from a set could allegedly cause interference
Isn't that rebutted by basic physics? Both signals follow the simple inverse square law. A TV signal 50miles from the tower is 1/4 the signal strength of the signal 25miles, while a device 50m from a set is 1/25 the interference of a device 10m from a set.
>>> At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within [160 feet] from a set could cause interference.
Unacceptable. I'm speaking from the point-of-view of the User, who is concerned about losing his ability to watch free television like Heroes, Lost, CSI, Smallville, Prison Break, and of course the local news & weather. Since I live in the densely-populated Northeast, almost every channel is filled. There's only 4 non-adjacent open channels where I live; I don't see how WSDs are going to operate without causing me to lose my picture.
If I'm trying to watch the Phillies match on WPHL-17, the last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over top of 17 (because it believes it's empty) or neighboring channels 16/18. That would instantly block-out my viewing of the World Series. Or worse, block out the station while a major snowstorm is blasting through, and I get cut-off from life-critical information. See my signature. Whitespace gadgets are fine. Just keep them off the TV band. I need my television; I like my television. According to a quick calculation, the addition of whitespace interference on TV channels would drop my receivable stations.....
From: ~19 channels (Baltimore, Philly, Harrisburg, Lancaster)
To: 5 channels (local market only)
Unacceptable. I just invested $300 on four DTV tuner boxes, and another $100 on brand-new rooftop antennas, in order to prepare myself for the 2009 transition. I don't want my investment to be a waste because the antennna is blocked by an Ipod from seeing Heroes or CSI in high-definition video.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
I had recently been posting to a board that uses BBCode, so I got confused. By the time I chose not to hit the preview button, it was already too late :).
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Seriously......
electronic devices that mess up broadcast television signals. Hrmmmmm......
can we get devices that screw up cable and satellite tv too?
That would be great!
(america needs to tune into REALITY for a while!)
If you are relying on the TV for emergency broadcast information instead of a battery powered radio then you are doing it wrong, let's be real.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
Dumbass answer. You use ALL the devices that are available (radio, tv, and if the power still works, internet). To handicap yourself by not using the tv with its visual-images of maps, storms, and tornadoes is stupid. ----- Also many communities in rural Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming don't have any service except the VHF (read: very long-distance) TV. "Use the radio" is not a solution because the radio doesn't exist.
I stand by what I said before: "The last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over-top or next-to my TV channel..... and block out the station while a major storm is blasting through, cutting me off from life-critical information."
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
While you want your free entertainment in the form of TV shows perhaps some people want it in the form of internet or gadgets to play on.
Also I think the concern given to emergency broadcasts is rather unrealistic. Could tcp/ip not deliver even more reliable emergency broadcasts than TV.
In some of the very sparsly populated and rural communities will there be people with these devices close enough to the TV sets to disrupt it?
The FCC has a rule that whichever service occupies a range of frequencies has first priority. Television arrived first in the 1930s, and certainly has first priority. The FCC is obligated to protect television transmission from interference of other devices.
If you reject that, consider the distribution of Heroes in HDTV. Which is more efficient?
- Eliminating television, and sending 30,000,000 copies to 30 million viewers via NBC.com?
- Keeping television and sending 200 copies to reach those same viewers via 200 terrestrial stations?
I think the answer is obvious. BROAD-cast of 200 copies of the show is far more efficient and logical than single-casting 30,000,000 copies. (Plus it's doubtful NBC.com could handle the required 500,000 gigabit demand of streaming Heroes in HD.)
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
You're really asking for a redundant mod, you know that?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
re: 500,000 gigabit demand....
Have you ever heard of multicast, they would only have to stream, at minimum, 1 copy, or at max, 1 copy per data center...
just my two cents
stine
I agree completely with you electrictroy, but damn man you must have posted about 50 times in this thread 8-).
That's the big problem though, if you've got a sweet antenna setup, the white space devices can decide some of the channels you can pick up are idle and blast a signal right over the TV signal.
And, in fact, already have during several FCC prototype tests... (Google etc. have claimed the prototype they provided was defective.. well.. if manufacturing defects can cause the device to fail noisy, it fails as far as I'm concerned.. and the FCC.)
Quoted for Truth:
>>>>>>
I agree completely with you electrictroy.... That's the big problem though, if you've got a sweet antenna setup, the white space devices can decide some of the channels you can pick up are idle and blast a signal right over the TV signal.
And, in fact, already have during several FCC prototype tests... (Google etc. have claimed the prototype they provided was defective.. well.. if manufacturing defects can cause the device to fail noisy, it fails as far as I'm concerned.. and the FCC.)
>>>
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Doesn't multicast still require "splitting" the signal at some point, so it can reach individual PC? That would work better, but it still means you have to watch Heroes at a set multicast time (9 p.m.) rather than on-demand, or via tape-delay (VCR/DVR).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.