FCC To Open Up Vacant TV Airwaves For Broadband

crimeandpunishment writes "Get ready for 'super Wi-Fi.' If the FCC works out the last details of new spectrum rules, they'll open up the so-called 'white spaces'... the vacant airwaves between broadcast TV channels ... for wireless broadband connections. If the plan goes through, it will lead to Wi-Fi with longer range and stronger power. The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, but the FCC plans to vote next week on rules meant to resolve those issues."

Comments

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[Anarki2004]

Java Script? Is that you?

Microphones

[Sylak]

Too bad for everybody planning on using this in a theatre that most of the Wireless Mics i use in theatre are easily FCC Class A devices and get to fuck with their new wireless internet

Re:Microphones

[hedwards]

Er, what? First off, as much as I dislike grammar Nazis, at some point it's just incomprehensible. Second off, doesn't the FCC normally bar interference from devices that are not licensed? And thirdly, it's not likely to be a big enough problem for people to lose sleep over.

Re:Microphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of any legacy microphone stations in this range now subject you to hefty fines. You're required to be off that part of the spectrum. So start dumping thousands into new gear, post haste.

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdot,

I'm killing myself. My wife left me today.

Go to hell,
J.S.

What on earth does that have in common with Wi-Fi or TV?

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[Pharmboy]

Dear Slashdot,
I'm killing myself. My wife left me today.

Thank god. I'm personally tired of all the useless comments from that guy named "Anonymous Coward" anyway.

Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[vlm]

The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, but the FCC plans to vote next week on rules meant to resolve those issues.

Why can't those politicians vote on something more useful, like repealing the law of gravity, or laws of thermodynamics? I'm sure its likely to be equally successful.

Dear FCC

[LWATCDR]

This is really nice but.
Make cable companies divest themselves of networks!
Talk about your conflict of interest.

Good idea, with guarded concern...

[scharkalvin]

I'm glad the FCC is leaning toward unlicensed use of the spectrum instead of selling it to some M$ like concern. I hope they put enough common sense regulation in place to allow the spectrum to be used without mutual interference with itself. Digital TV is somewhat more imune to interference than analog, but the new wifi devices do need to be self configurable to avoid assigned TV channels.

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

>>>I'm glad the FCC is leaning toward unlicensed use of the spectrum instead of selling it to some M$ like concern

Actually the FCC is planning to do both. They hatched the "open channels for wireless gadgets" idea in 2008, but also are planning to sell-off channel 26 and up for cellular usage. The FCC is following both plans. If Congress doesn't stop the FCC from doing plan #2 here's what I predict will happen:

CBS / CW (single multiplexed channel)
FOX / MyNetTV (single channel)
NBC /Universal sports (ditto)
ABC / LiveWellHD
ION / qubo
PBS / PBSkids

Minor networks like RetroTV, This Movie Channel, Megahertz, and religious stations would probably disappear forever, due to lack of space in the smaller 2 to 25 TV band.

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[hedwards]

2 to 25 is plenty for most of the country. Around here, we'd have to more or less triple the stations to use that up. Probably have to go to HD to do it.

As much sympathy as I have, why should most of the country suffer for what is an east coast centric problem? I get that there are a lot of people over there, but it got old a long time ago having to suffer for problems which are way over there.

It shows a distinct arrogance to screw us once again over an issue that doesn't affect us.

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[theaveng]

why should most of the country suffer for what is an east coast centric problem?

Because over half the country lives on the east coast or northeast, where this problem occurs. Majority rules, right? Right. ;-)

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[scharkalvin]

Because these frequencies are line of sight in coverage the FCC can have it both ways. Where the channels are needed for TV they can be used for this, in parts of the country where they are not used for TV they could be used for other services. Roaming devices would have to be able to switch channels when used in parts of the country where the channels are used for TV.

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure in crowded areas like NY, nobody will interfere with broadcast TV. After all, nobody would ever be tempted to use more effective radiated power than the law allows. (like using high gain antennas) The US has had great coordination of frequencies because of the tight controls by the FCC. Going to large unlicensed stuff isn't necessarily a great idea. (Think of how CB went from being a licensed service, with limited power and strictly omnidirectional antennas, to an unlicensed mob, where, instead of people using 5 watts, used 1,000 watts AND directional antennas, effectively negating the possibility of communicating with others if one obeyed the law.)

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[commodore64_love]

>>>Because these frequencies are line of sight in coverage the FCC can have it both ways.

TV signals extend outward in a 100 mile wide circle. If you have a channel 10 in Boston, the next closest channel 10 would have to be in Philadelphia... at least 200 miles distant.
.

>>>in parts of the country where channels are not used for TV they could be used for other services.

True but in real-world terms this means the Whitespace internet Device won't be usable anywhere east of the Mississippi. The TV channels are all full. Also: If I'm trying to watch the Baltimore Ravens or Philadelphia Phillies, and you flip-on your Whitespace Net Device such that its broadcasts over the channel, I will politely ask you to turn it off.

If you do not comply, per FCC rules, this is an illegal transmitter and I have the right to make it inoperative. Licensed TV has priority over unlicensed devices.

Re:Good idea, with guarded concern...

[Lord_Byron]

>If you do not comply, per FCC rules, this is an illegal transmitter and I have the right to make it inoperative.

No, no you really don't. You can complain to the FCC who will take action (on a good day). Also, maybe you should call the TV station which is being interfered with. Lawyers are standing by! If you attempt to "make it inoperative" you are potentially escalating a conflict and may well wind up getting sued, arrested, or hurt.

The important question is...

[Jafafa Hots]

...to whom will we have to fork over the hefty monthly charges to use our "public" airwaves?

Re:The important question is...

[commodore64_love]

Microsoft, Google, ATT, Verizon, and other internet/cellular/wireless companies.

No more free ride like now (where I can see ~40 channels without charge). By the way I got rid of cable when I realized I was oly watching 5 of the shows. Kinda silly to spend ~$800 a year for just five cable shows. It's cheaper to rent the Season sets on DVD.

Re:The important question is...

[troll -1]

Mod parent up.

The airways (a free medium) has become a cash cow for the government. The entry fee for competing in the wireless market is in the millions. It's one of the reasons you pay for things like texting and get nickel-and-dimed for crap.

I hope _at least_ they don't auction any of this off to any of the incumbent cell phone companies.

Re:The important question is...

[mcgrew]

Well, nobody owns wifi spectrum, do they? I don't have an ISP, yet my wifi works just fine, thanks to the kind souls who don't lock down their connections. This could lead to a nationwide mesh network that was hooked to the internet via coffeeshops, libraries, and the like.

Re:The important question is...

[Jafafa Hots]

It's more of a cash cow for the corporations that buy the spectrum. Essentially what happened is, the govt. was mandated to use the public's airwaves in the public interest, and they decided it was in the public's best interest to auction the spectrum off so that the public's government can collect a $5 fee from the corporation for the corporation to have the right to sell it back to us for $500.

Basically we're selling licenses to print money.

Re:The important question is...

[hedwards]

That's what open-mesh was created specifically to do. The devices themselves are cheap and easy to set up. And they provide you with efficient tools to connect up to billing services and authentication if you wish to.

Re:The important question is...

[theaveng]

At least the Radio and TV licensees give us free entertainment. They pay about $100,000 per year per channel, and charge nothing to access it. IMHO that automatically makes them a preferred option over giving that TV and FM band to Cell or Wireless companies that charge us.

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[mrsquid0]

If you are my age or younger then life without wi-fi is not worth living. If you are much older than I am then life without tv is not worth living.

TV signals

[airfoobar]

Imo, TV signals are a waste of bandwidth... There must be other ways to transmit TV these days, so they should free a lot of those frequencies for use by wireless networks. It probably won't happen any time soon, but I have no doubt that's the way forward.

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why we won't realize that a lot of the maintained infrastructure (copper phone, lines, cable, tv even radio) can be put to rest with the Internet already in place. Imagine you had a radio in your car that instead of tuning frequencies would tune to different ip's. Now you could have unlimited radio stations and fcc would not have to regulate it, as it is an infinite resource.

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

FU I refuse to pay for TV. I refuse to have to pay for a landline to be strung to my residence. Tell you what why don't YOU use a landline for a more efficient way to utilize your bandwidth.

Re:TV signals

[characterZer0]

You seem to be under the misconception that the FCC regulates to ration a finite resource and not to impose morals, push political agendas, perpetuate bureaucracy, and appease campaign donors.

Re:TV signals

[IndustrialComplex]

There must be other ways to transmit TV these days

I agree, what we really need is a means to transmit a video and audio signal in a manner which can reach almost our entire population. If only there were a means to do this without us having to lay down thousands of miles of data lines, either hanging on poles, or underground.

Re:TV signals

[bjwest]

Ummmm.. How the hell do you reckon they transmit something over the air without using radio waves? Not every house in the country has cable access, and the telephone lines sure as hell won't carry one channel, much less the "Big Three", PBS and Fox...

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... imagine that... a radio in your car that could tune to ANY IP!??!?! You'd never have wireless spectrum problems again!!!! Magic. Ta da!

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

Data still takes bandwidth, and we can't get more than 19.39 Mbps into a single 6 MHz channel (at least with 8VSB). So until we switch to another modulation scheme (and obsolete all the new ATSC equipment) we're stuck at 19.39 Mbps. We can pack more program streams into the transport stream but with MPEG2 which is currently mandated we can only do that by reducing the quality of existing streams. (Not the programming quality, that's an entirely different subject.) MPEG4 can help significantly but that would once again obsolete a bunch of fairly new equipment.

Two points need to be made:

1. Most of the time channels could share a single transport stream, but it will be quite difficult to get competing media corps to do that.
2. The UHF spectrum is ideally suited to the current business structure of the media corps and the wide spread use of receivers (TVs) means a lock-in on the UHF band for years to come.

In a decade or so we can probably implement MPEG4 (or whatever standard has been established at that point) for over-the-air broadcasts, but right now a bunch of people just bought new TVs and want them to last for 5 - 10 years. Moving to an entirely IP based broadcast methodology would require a number of safe guards in the end-to-end distribution to ensure that people who rely on TV broadcasts for emergency information will not lose information due to a DOS.

Take this with a grain of salt. I'm in the broadcast equipment industry and keeping thing status quo does make my life easier.

Re:TV signals

[IndustrialComplex]

I realize I was being a bit snarky there, but currently TV does provide a useful service. At the time, it was really the only way to broadcast a message quickly and efficiently to pretty much everyone.

It is a limited resource with respect to the fact that you can really only have one entity use a section of it at a time, but it is also unlimited with respect to the fact that it never decreases with respect to how much you use it. ie: it remains unchanged if you use it for 10 seconds or 100 years. (Not true with resources like minerals) As it stands, it is a mistake to NOT use a resource which is not consumed, and TV at the time was pretty much the best way to utilize that resource and gain some revenue.

It was only recently that we could really use it for anything other than basic broadcasting (The few other needs were met as things like emergency messages could override the TV broadcasts)

To really replace television as the means of revenue, the following would need to happen:

1. Techology would have to improve to the level where we could have receivers which cost approximately the same as today's TV tuner.
2. Everyone would need these receivers
3. We would need an infrastructure which reached EVERYONE that TV can now reach
4. Then we could switch to broadcasting television over this alternate infrastructure.

Then you could use the spectrum however you wished. But that step 3 is a HUGE step that we are not even close to being able to complete.

So we either 'waste' the bandwidth on television and establish an infrastructure for a universal network because we can't use this spectrum, or we establish an infrastructure for a universal network so we can free up the spectrum.

Re:TV signals

[Yamata no Orochi]

FU I refuse to pay for TV.

Then you don't get TV.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Re:TV signals

[airfoobar]

The thing is, step 3 is not as huge as it sounds. Only the most densely-populated areas will benefit from better usage of available frequencies, so new infrastructure is only needed for big cities and such.

Re:TV signals

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There must be other ways to transmit TV these days, so they should free a lot of those frequencies for use by wireless networks.

Well, as long as you're not too concerned about signal range, graceful degradation, patents, and codec artefacts, then yes digital TV is another method of transmitting television signals. In addition, all those shiny new wireless networks will be leased out by the government for big cash payments to private companies who will in turn gouge you and your neighbours for the use of those formerly public radio bands. And on top of all that, to compensate you for the loss of your old TV stations, other private companies can charge you even more money for providing you with your old channels--at a lesser, encoded quality of course--plus hundreds of other awful channels you never even wanted in the first place. And in addition, because of all the new channel competition, you can look forwards to longer, louder ads on every channel you watch as well as reduced program quality in an effort to keep costs down.

So there are "other" methods of transmitting television these days. I'm not sure I would call them "better" except perhaps in a loose technical sense, However, I'm sure most companies and governments who will reap handsome management bonuses would naturally disagree with my assessment. And that's before we even get to the usual Geek technical/religious debates. With respect to these parties, my current position is that our national TV broadcasting regime(I'm not in the US) is perfectly satisfactory and does not require anything like the kind of technical and organizational upheaval that is being proposed.

Then again, if you live in a country without a national broadcaster, I suppose your mileage really would vary.

Re:TV signals

[commodore64_love]

>>>Imo, TV signals are a waste of bandwidth...

Not really. They stream ~20 Mbit/s of video to approximately 0.5 million homes per city/market. That's over 6000 gigabytes of television/news per home, or 3,000,000 terabytes total. Show me any internet or cellphone that can do the same, and at $0.00 cost per year. You can't. - (Imo, only a fool pays for watching Supernatural or CSI or whatever else you enjoy, when it's available for free.)

Re:TV signals

[airfoobar]

I rarely watch TV, yet I use my wifi all the time. I'd gladly trade off TV for "wifi with longer range and stronger power".

Re:TV signals

[commodore64_love]

>>>what we really need is a means to transmit a video and audio signal in a manner which can reach almost our entire population. If only there were a means to do this without us having to lay down thousands of miles of data lines, either hanging on poles, or underground.
>>>

What about a centralized antenna that broadcasts 24 hours a day, and homeowners can capture that audiovideo signal with some kind of recording device? Call it a Tape Video Recorder or TVR or some variant thereof. Then people could watch the video when they get home from work, on their own schedule or if they prefer: live (like weather and news updates).

Ahhh... we're just dreaming. Obviously laying millions of miles of lines is the only way to get the AV programs to people. It will be expensive though. Possibly only the rich could afford the ~$1000 a year cost, whereas with OUR idea the cost would be Free. Even the poor could partake. :-|

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Then you don't get TV.

The airwaves are the collective property of the American People (long with roads, air, and other common goods). They have a natural right to at least SOME of it being usable without cost, i.e. Free TV and Radio. Why should an Owner have to rent his own property? That makes little sense.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

FOX is now part of the "Big Four". In fact it came in 2nd place the last two years. Plus The CW network at number 5, MyNetworkTV number 6, and finally ION (dead last). PBS too.

Re:TV signals

[Yamata no Orochi]

There's no "natural right" to radio frequencies, that's ridiculous. If everyone broadcasting via airwaves suddenly stopped, and you could no longer get free TV, who has infringed upon your "natural rights?"

No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Here's a quick off-the-top of my head list of all the channels I get for free. How the heck do you propose to squeeze all of these into only channels 2 to 25, per the FCC's just-released Broadband Plan to sell off everything above 25. Even with MPEG4 it would be impossible to keep all of these:

- MAJOR NETS: abc, cbs, fox, nbc, cw, mynettv, ion, pbs
- Other nets: univision, telemundo, telefutura
- independents: MINDtv, Megahertz, Link, a local religious station, a 20 hour shopping channel plus 4 hour news
- other national channels:
GetWell channel
This movie channel
NBC Weather
NBC sports
PBSkids
PBSworld
FOX News channel
Qubo
Worship
Smile of a Child
JCTV (teen channel)
Enlace (spanish)
TBN
RetroTV (70s/80s classics)
Family Channel (50s/60s classics)

Re:TV signals

[tverbeek]

Broadcast TV is a great example of a effective use of wireless technology. As a one-to-many, one-way method of communication with an indeterminate number of receiving stations, the use of radio waves makes perfect sense. ("Radio waves want to radiate.") Same with audio-only TV (aka radio). It's a great use for that bandwidth, not a waste.

Pretty much every other use of radio technology is less suited to the use of radio waves. You have an indeterminate number of concurrent users on the same frequencies, each trying to both broadcast and receive. They are systems that scale horribly, in terms of users and in terms of area. This is why cell service almost variably sucks, why wifi coverage sucks, and throwing more frequencies at the problem will only minimize/postpone the saturation problems. Copper and fiber are much better medium-distance and long-haul carriers, so the solution for most of these problems is more local (low-power) repeaters connected by actual wire, not just more frequencies.

Re:TV signals

[Spy Handler]

No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.

But someone is responsible for providing you with free healthcare?

Re:TV signals

[hedwards]

Bullshit, there is no such natural right. The airwaves belong to the people by way of the federal government. You have a right to use it so far as it's available to use. Just because you have a pet use doesn't mean you get to use it for that purpose.

By your logic you can drive on toll roads without paying the toll, because you own a portion of it. I'd be curious if you've the stones to tell that to the police when they're writing you a ticket for it.

Re:TV signals

[Yamata no Orochi]

No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.

But someone is responsible for providing you with free healthcare?

So tangential it's almost a non sequitur. Who taught you how to argue?

Re:TV signals

[hedwards]

Using bandwidth to service people at home is asinine. There is admittedly a reasonable argument for people in the middle of nowhere, but in cities there's absolutely no justification for it when you can lay wire.

I assume that you're trolling, because otherwise you're just an obtuse jack ass. There are ways of hooking up the poor, other than the antenna, and assuming that it's impossible only maintains the status quo.

Re:TV signals

[TheSync]

TV signals are a waste of bandwidth...

As of 2007, 14% of all U.S. television households, or 15.36 million, rely on over-the-air broadcasts for their TV viewing. I suspect this number hasn't changed much, as any loss from the DTV transition has probably been made up for by people dropping cable/DBS for free OTA TV due to the economy.

Re:TV signals

[russotto]

1. Most of the time channels could share a single transport stream, but it will be quite difficult to get competing media corps to do that.

And you have to either throw away HD, or switch to MPEG-4 (obseleting receivers, etc). A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels, so either you go with 480p or you overcompress to the point that it looks worse than 480p.

Re:TV signals

[DrgnDancer]

While you make a somewhat valid point that bureaucrats will always regulate in ways that ensure their continued employment, you also miss a major point: The resource is in fact limited. There's only so much usable spectrum within current technical definitions of "usable". While a solution like this would probably work for a large chunk of America, I see it failing at the edge cases. In very congested areas (New York, Chicago, LA, etc) you'd have the same problems that the cell providers are having now. Simply too many devices trying to access the network, no matter how much capacity you try to build in. In rural America you'd have expensive network routing systems sitting idle or nearly idle while 1 or 2 or 10 people drive through their "zone" every day.

Not to mention the expense to everyday consumers. Remember the "digital converter" debacle that caused the switch to DTV to be delayed forever? That was a fairly minor alteration in the way TV is viewed. It maintained the basic paradigm of frequencies and channels that we've always used. This kind of change would essentially require turning every radio and television in the country into an IP aware network device, and since you'd be cannibalizing on the current spectrum uses, you'd have to have to, all at once, turn off *all* regular TV and radio and turn this on. It would be a logistical nightmare.

Re:TV signals

[TheSync]

A single 19Mpbs transport stream can't hold two decent-quality 720p MPEG-2 channels

You are so correct! This is the single most intelligent comment I have ever seen on Slashdot!

I'll admit, it is not impossible to imagine that some day we might figure out how to build MPEG-2 encoders to achieve this (quantum computer motion prediction?) but for the foreseeable future, please keep one HD per 19.39 Mbps, maybe with one SD channel muxed in as well.

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Maybe in your market you get less free stuff. Oh well.

How many of those channels are HD? With MPEG4, you can get two HD programs in one channel, although some people debate whether the quality is good enough (aligned with their agenda, no doubt). You can fit several SD programs on a single channel. Channel-sharing would go a long way here, if you can get people to play nice.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

You're right. 3,000,000,000 gigabytes is a hell of a lot of data sent to 1/2 million homes every month.

- It's equivalent to send 60 million Bluray Discs to every home in Baltimore, every single month.
- And another 60 million Blurays to every home in Washington DC, every single month.
- And another 60 million to every home in Richmond Virginia, every single month...

times all 200 television markets. All at Zero cost to the consumers.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

They are systems that scale horribly, in terms of users and in terms of area. This is why cell service almost variably sucks,

And the quality went down. Back when we had analog phones the sound was not great, but it was still better than the current overcompressed MP3-style cellphones. These modern voicecalls make your mom or grandma or whoever sound like they were "autotuned".

"Hey gramps, you sound just like Kanye West!" ;-) And it's only going to get worse as they shrink the voice line from 8 downto 4 downto 2 kbit/s streams, so they can squeeze more and more calls in their fixed bandwidth.

Copper and fiber are much better medium-distance and long-haul carriers

And multipliable. Wireless has ONE spectrum, and when it's full, it's full. No more room. Copper/fiber provides many spectrums - one per wire you lay down. It has near-infinite growth potential.

Re:TV signals

[AtomicOrange]

No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.

Now dance for me monkey!


Sorry, I'll get back to my hole.

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not technically part of the internet yet (or ever?), but multicast IP has the potential.

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people get "free health care", all you have to do is not pay your bill, but the rest of us pay for it with higher medical bills. Perhaps you should try a libertarian paradise, where sick people die in the streets, or murder for the money to pay for emergency medical care.

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

But most of the time the programs are not improved by high bitrate 720p (tongue in cheek a bit), so yes most of the time it could be done.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Nature has given us the Air. It is the common property of all humankind. It is upon this basis that Clean Air laws were enacted (the natural right to breath non-poisonous atmosphere). Well airwaves are also part of that common property

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

The airwaves belong to the people by way of the federal government.

That's upside down.

THE PEOPLE (from which all authority comes and to which all common property belongs)
  |
Your State Constitution
  |
State Legislature
  |
Federal Constitution
  |
federal government (at the bottom - as servant and nothing more)

Re:TV signals

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true... it's the most sparsely populated areas that will need new infrastructure. From my moms house, you need to drive 13 miles to get a cell phone signal.... and forget about broadband, but she can get TV.... and there are millions of people in similar situations, especially across the west

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

I live in the middle of te northeast city called the Northeast Megalopolis (i.e. along I95).

You're right. I could get my TV through the wires but the cost is over $1000 per year (CATV) or $2000 (wireless internet). And I'm not poor. But why should I have to pay that much money when an antenna gets me 95% of the same shows free of charge. Why do ye insist upon killing an excellent service that costs us consumers nothing to access?

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Maybe in your market you get less free stuff. Oh well.

And what do I gain? A $2000 a year wireless phone or internet bill. Yay. You are failing to sell me why shrinking the TV Band to 25 channels is something I should support.

Re:TV signals

[Defenestrar]

...Even the poor could partake.

Some of the tele viewed (from watched far away) programs could be informational and thus lead to a well informed population, including the poor, for a more effective democracy.

Who are we kidding here, even if we could make such a thing happen people would probably choose to watch random people off the streets being made fun of for singing songs they didn't write instead of a live broadcast of the Senate floor.

Call me Mr. Pessimistic, but my guess is that we'll go for the expensive option and people will still choose to watch something like cat's playing the piano poorly instead of live net-casts of shuttle launches and House Committee discussions.

There may always be barriers for the poor in wallet from being a perfectly well informed citizen, but they are negligible compared to the barriers for the poor in mind.

PS - I actually have no problem with a felid trying to improve him or herself in the musical arts or of people studying said felid's progress thus far. It's the exclusivity that gets on my nerves.

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Why do you have to gain something? You're paying $0 now and you'll pay $0 in the future. Does it really matter if it's less? You're still not paying anything.

I don't expect you to support it. You're entitled to the amount of free TV you're getting right now and it shouldn't be decreased, regardless of whether the end result is beneficial to more people than yourself. Right?

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

I'll also add that I don't think broadcast TV is going to go anywhere anytime soon. It'll be around for a while. While only 15% of the population receive TV over-the-air (OTA), 50% of cable head-ends still receive signals OTA before placing the signals on cable. I don't know how many satellite sources receive signals over the air, but I doubt it's a trivial number. Broadcast OTA is going to be around for a while.

The only way I can see it going away is if the FCC mandates a truly free package on cable and satellite services that at least replicates what people were originally able to receive OTA. Someone would also have to pay to get all of those cable and satellite head-ends wired up to receive the signal.

-John

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

>> They have a natural right to at least SOME of it being usable without cost

lol... no. The FCC is mandated to regulate the limited resource in the public interest. If the public interest is better served by having channels above 50 designated for free wifi or whatever versus over the air television, then that decision is valid.

You can question the process or whether the FCC really cares about the public interest versus corporate interest, but you have no "right" to free spectrum, TV, radio, etc.

-John

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Because you're free service is restricting what other services (free or pay) are available for the rest of us.

Over-the-air broadcasts is not the only technical solution to free television.

-John

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Stop making this stupid comparison. Yes, technically there are bits flowing with OTA television, but you're comparing apples and oranges. One is a constantly on, one-way broadcast transmission and the other is a two-way demand-based system.

Turn the entire broadcast spectrum into a cable-like system with return paths and on-demand channel assignments and you'll be able to provide far, far more channels and usefulness out of the spectrum versus conventional OTA broadcasting.

-John

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

>> Broadcast TV is a great example of a effective use of
>> wireless technology. As a one-to-many, one-way method
>> of communication with an indeterminate number of
>> receiving stations, the use of radio waves makes perfect sense.

It made sense when everyone was receiving OTA television. Now only 15% of the population and 50% of the cable head-ends receive OTA. It's no longer a one-to-as-many, more of a one-to-15% while the other 85% of the population don't get any use out of the spectrum.

Fiber, cable and satellite make the most sense for fixed services, such as home television and home Internet. Free up the spectrum for mobile uses where copper/fiber obviously don't make sense.

-John

Re:TV signals

[IndustrialComplex]

The thing is, step 3 is not as huge as it sounds. Only the most densely-populated areas will benefit from better usage of available frequencies, so new infrastructure is only needed for big cities and such.

That sounds pretty nasty to regulate.

You would have an area where you would be transmitting television for hundreds of miles (rural areas) and have that butt up against areas where you would be transmitting 'something else' That area in between would need the infrastructure (since the TV signals would interfere) but wouldn't get the benefit from either the TV broadcast or the wireless service.

For such long range frequencies, I'd think a uniform platform is unfortunately necessary across the entire country to avoid 'dead zones' which would fluctuate based on weather conditions, as opposed to just a few areas that get poor reception (but which could be fixed by a repeater)

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Because you're free service is restricting what other services (free or pay) are available for the rest of us.

False. You have plenty of wireless cellphones and internet, AND wired internet. In fact the amount of over-the-air spectrum assigned to cellular usage is about triple what Free TV uses, so if anybody is being greedy/demanding - it's the cell companies.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

I'll also add that I don't think broadcast TV is going to go anywhere anytime soon.

So they keep saying. First they cut us back from 83 to 69 channels. Then 69 downto 51. Now the FCC wants to cut it further to about 25 channels, and really expect us to believe we will still have the same number of Networks/Movies/etc that we've currently have?

Not buying it. Something has to be lost, simply due to lack of space. Most likely it will be all those cool subchannels like Megahertz, International Link, This Movie channel, RetroTV, Qubo, and so on.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Turn the entire broadcast spectrum into a cable-like system with return paths and on-demand channel assignments and you'll

Never be able to serve all 1/2 million homes per DMA (designated market area). 50 TV channels * 20 Mbit/s each / 500,000 homes == 2 kbit/s per home of internet connectivity.

It. Is. Impractical.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

It went up to 20% in just this past year (since the analog shutoff) because of the bad economy and canceling CATV for Free TV.

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

Nature has given us the Air. It is the common property of all humankind. It is upon this basis that Clean Air laws were enacted (the natural right to breath non-poisonous atmosphere). Well airwaves are also part of that common property

I don't think it's too much for the People to demand that THEIR common property not "all" be sealed up behind corporate paywalls. Leave some of it -radio and tv- open access to everyone (like open source software).

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

What do you do when there's a tornado or hurricane barreling towards you home? How do you keep up to date on the news/weather report? Internet isn't really viable (it's either hours out of date, or non-local).

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Air is the medium for the electromagnetic spectrum. They're not the same thing.

I agree with you that some spectrum needs to remain unregulated.

John

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Like the cable system, you reduce the number of house-holds "passed" by the spectrum. More, lower power transmitters, smarter receivers, etc. as addressed in the National Broadband Plan as a ten-year objective (or idea, at least).

You've already made it clear that the only thing you care about is receiving the same amount of free TV. That can be provided via cable, satellite or the phone lines to fixed locations. I don't think you have any concerns with spectrum, just maintaining your level of free product.

-John

Re:TV signals

[drinkypoo]

I hear IPv6 has working multicast, but IPv4 really doesn't. I hear we're going to go to IPv6 someday, but someday keeps getting further off. Kind of like tomorrow, but even further away...

Re:TV signals

[theaveng]

YEah because I'm poror and cna't afford to spend $2000 a year to get CATV like Wealthy youo mtoher fyuckerxs You stupid rich basrds sdon't cafre wobut anyone but yourselfves

Rot ihj hell yuou selfsih self-cetneerwed SOB!~

ive a Damn for the poor just once in your life!

Damn pinko pro-corporation libertarian bastard
.

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Bit early to be drinking, isn't it?

I don't think free TV will ever go away, but the method you're using to receive it will change.

-John

Re:TV signals

[commodore64_love]

In the last year it's jumped from 15 to almost 20% - why you want to force these ~25 million homes to lose Free TV and have to shell-out ~$2000 per year wireless internet, simply to get the same shows, makes no sense to me.

.

Re:TV signals

[commodore64_love]

>>>Air is the medium for the electromagnetic spectrum. They're not the same thing.

If "the People" own the air (as given to them by nature), they also own the airwaves. i.e. They own the electromagnetic spectrum. The companies merely LEASE that space from the People.

Re:TV signals

[Sepodati]

Once again, I'm not against "Free TV" going away. I just want it pushed over another medium.

Re:TV signals

[Tuffleuphagus]

All I want is the right to be able to use a fair portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for my personal use in a local area. But what is usable where is getting sold off to the highest bidder. This, I think, is the injustice. I don't get to play with high powered radios because the people want to watch Lost.

With any luck

[drewzhrodague]

If they're planning on using bands within or nearby the current digital channels, I suspect that folks may be able to hack the current lineup of WRTs to spit out an ATSC signal. This would actually be really good thing for the diy crowd. Everyone needs their own pirate TV station. I haven't seen any F/OSS ATSC modulation code in the wild yet though.

Re:With any luck

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't be easy to accomplish. The WRTs use a BCM4702 (look at the open-wrt pages) which is a WiFi modulator which puts out QPSK not VSB.

Re:With any luck

[TheSync]

I suspect that folks may be able to hack the current lineup of WRTs to spit out an ATSC signal.

No, there is absolutely no way this could occur. ATSC is 8VSB modulation, which is completely unrelated to the modulation technique used in WiFi.

But if you really want to try, here is all you need to do....

Beyond that, the creation of a 19 Mbps MPEG-2 TS of appropriate quality for DTV broadcast (PCR accuracy of 500nS, for example) is pretty tough to do without professional equipment, though maybe you could make a really, really crappy signal...

Last mile

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this makes some more ISPs appear that can cover areas not currently covered by any wired broadband. Cellular is OK, just expensive. Cost of entry in the cellular market is huge, this could be loads cheaper and give us some decent competition again, especially against those telcos bullshit "no tethering" rules and all sorts of other convoluted pricing schemes. All I want from a connection is a cheap dumb pipe, I am sick and tired of "plans", especially two year "plans". Give me a good fast connection with some reasonable bandwith, and I can figure out my own telephone service and media consumption, I don't need the telcos or cable guys to do that for me.

And by the way as a side issue, I have scripting turned on to use this site..could you please fix it so it works? Or provide a way for an AC to use the old style?

A question not deemed important

[Dishmopo]

Serious question that I don't remember ever seeing in the previous articles:

What happens when a new broadcaster wants to set up shop in a location dominated by "white space"? Will the operators of the "white space" be able to sue the potential broadcaster to prevent them from getting a license (note: I said sue, not win)?

Also, what will prevent broadcasters from gratuitously applying for Construction Permits everywhere there is currently white space?

Re:A question not deemed important

[snspdaarf]

White space is the buffer band between channels, not unused channels themselves, IIRC.

Re:A question not deemed important

[commodore64_love]

The whitespace device is supposed to be automatically updated via GPS and the internet to not use Channels occupied by existing and new stations. Basically it keeps a "do not use" channel list in its memory.

MY main concern is this question:

- What happens if I'm trying to watch a station outside my direct market? For example a DC channel 5 when I live in Baltimore's market. I suspect channel 5 will be unprotected and these whitespace gadgets will broadcast directly over the channel.

Re:A question not deemed important

[Daa]

There are no "buffer" bands, analog TV used 2 carriers in the 6MHz channel and you could find some free space as long as you didn't mind the interference with either the audio or video. DTV uses all of the 6 MHz with almost no channel edge gap and is spread spectrum like wifi so there are no gaps to sneak into. In the major metropolitan areas the reality is there will be NO free channels for TVBDs. Which means that a lagre percentage of the US population will gain no benefit form the TVBD devices because they will have no channels to use them on.

Re:A question not deemed important

[theaveng]

No buffer bands. Two of my favorite channels 10 and 11 butt-up right next to one another, with only a few hertz of space between them. That's enough room to carry a dialup modem (3000 hertz wide) and nothing more.

Re:A question not deemed important

[snspdaarf]

That I did not know. Thanks.

What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Digital TV is somewhat more imune to interference than analog

False. I've switched to DTV and it's amazing what will block it. I turned on a vacuum cleaner and said goodbye to 50-mile distant channel 6 disappeared. In the old analog world it would have simple added some "fuzz" on the screen but still watchable. And when we have storms, we lose the DTV where the old analog signal never disappeared. DTV can no longer be relied upon for areas with bad weather (think Tornado Alley from Texas to Minnesota) (or Hurricane Alley from Florida to Maryland).

And what open frequencies?

No joking but here is a list of all the channels currently in used along the Mid-Atlantic (near New Jersey). Where the hell does the FCC think Wifi devices are supposed to operate? I suspect what will actually happen is the teen girl next door will turn-on her device directly over top the Baltimore or Philadelphia station I'm trying to watch and make it disappear.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-21 (reserved for police in NY City and state)
24
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
35 (reserved for radioastronomy)
37
39
41
43
44
45
48
49
50

Plus dozens of low-power "neighborhood" transmitters that serve local communities.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Yamata no Orochi]

And what open frequencies? Where the hell does the FCC think Wifi devices are supposed to operate?

Channels =/= "frequencies."

They're referring to spectrum space in between "channels."

Re:What open frequencies?

[deepthoughtless]

You seem to be assuming that every channel completely consumes all available bandwidth between itself and it's surrounding channels. http://www.csgnetwork.com/tvfreqtable.html It's tight, yes, but there are gaps. It's the gaps that are to be utilized.

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

Channels and frequencies are synonymous in the world of television. "I tuned to channel 12 to watch the news." "I tuned to frequency 12 to watch the news." Americans use either interchangeably. Same in radio: "I'm listening to channel FM88." "I'm listening to frequency FM88."

You're nitpicking my word choice, but not addressing my very real question: WHAT open channels?

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You seem to be assuming that every channel completely consumes all available bandwidth

No. I'm not that dumb. I'm assuming that the Midatlantic and Northeast US is booked solid. WPVI in Philly recently asked the FCC permission to move from VHF-6 to a UHF channel. They were denied. Reason: The FCC determined there were no free channels. The TV band in this area is already full.

Also ever heard of Adjacent Channel interference? Basically it means if I'm trying to watch channel 45, and some person turns-on their Wireless whitespace gadget on 44 or 46, the "spillover" of his six megahertz signal can interfere and block my TV from receiving channel 45. In fact that's one of the reasons WPVI wanted off channel 6 - they are getting adjacent channel interference

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

You are correct.

The only channels currently not in use along Washington DC to New York City I95 corridor (and also including ?Harrisburg, Scranton) are 2, 3, 4, and 5. Everything else is reserved, leaving no room for whitespace TV Band Devices (TVBDs in FCC parlance).

Re:What open frequencies?

[Yamata no Orochi]

I'm not nitpicking, I was clarifying where you were confused. Freeing up frequencies for Wifi does not have to fall within the constraint of "channels" because you won't be using a television to "tune in" to them. To reiterate, they're NOT the same thing. You don't need an "open channel" because there IS space between frequencies channels are assigned to. Similarly, there is space available in between "FM88" and "FM89" to use your own example.

Re:What open frequencies?

[DrgnDancer]

No, they're not. "Channels" use a specific frequency, true, but the words don't mean anything like the same thing. Let's say there's a hundred Mhz between channels: So channel 12 is 1200 Mhz, channel 13 is 1300 Mhz, etc. In reality it's nowhere near that simple, but his gives us easy numbers to work with. Now lets say that new digital receivers only need 10 Mhz or spread to get the same information across. Now we can compress the "channels" and have channel 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3... Which is leaves a huge spread of frequencies between channel 12 and channel 13 that no one is using. Tada! New frequency space and new "channels".

Channels are really just an abstraction. Any frequency range sufficient that a given device or class of devices can get all of the information it needs across, with some wiggle at the top an bottom to prevent bleed, is a "channel"

Re:What open frequencies?

[russotto]

You seem to be assuming that every channel completely consumes all available bandwidth between itself and it's surrounding channels.

Essentially, they do. There are very narrow guard bands without useful information, but they're full of noise. There's a gap between 4 and 5, and 6 and 7, and 13 and 14, but those spaces are not empty; they are used for other services.

Congress already took away channels 53-83; TV space is _crowded_ in the Northeast. And they want to take away another 200Mhz to give to Verizon, which will start seriously cutting down the number of channels.

Re:What open frequencies?

[samkass]

Basically it means if I'm trying to watch channel 45, and some person turns-on their Wireless whitespace gadget on 44 or 46, the "spillover" of his six megahertz signal can interfere and block my TV from receiving channel 45.

In this case, the proposal is not for the wi-fi to use 44 or 46 (which might already be allocated), it's for them to use the space BETWEEN 44 and 45, and between 45 and 46. The bits of "padding" frequency could be allocated to wi-fi if the tuners and transmitters are precise enough. The FCC just has to mandate the specificity sufficient to prevent "spillover" and enforce it in their device compliance tests.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

You don't need an "open channel" because there IS space between frequencies channels are assigned to.

Flat wrong. My two most-watched channels are 10 and 11 and there is NO space in between them. I don't know where you got the idea there's space between channels???

You must be one of those persons who offers an opinion, but actually knows nothing about the subject.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

I think you're being unnecesarily harsh towards C64 over what is, basically, a trivial matter. Channel or frequency. Who cares? Your pedantry reminds me of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.

Which is leaves a huge spread of frequencies between channel 12 and channel 13 that no one is using.

You are mistaken my friend. Channels 12 and 13 sit directly next to one another. There are NO free frequencies between channels 12 and 13. There's a small guard band of a few hertz, but that's not even wide enough to carry a dialup modem datalink (3000 hertz wide), much less a broadband internet connection.

Re:What open frequencies?

[AtomicOrange]

TV space is _crowded_ in the Northeast.

Because what the world really needs are more "Real Housewives of _____" and Jersey Shore

Re:What open frequencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your vacuum does that, you either need to get it fixed, or get your wiring checked.

Seriously, no joke. If it's actually the vacuum, you're liable to get fined for running it and interfering with properly licensed signal space. If it's the wiring, you've got real problems.

Re:What open frequencies?

[ByOhTek]

Just because there isn't space between two particular channels, doesn't mean there is no empty space there. Also, I'm afraid I can pull up quite a bit of evidence. To use your words, You must be one of those persons who offers an opinion, but actually knows nothing about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_broadcast_television_frequencies

http://www.avsforum.com/hdtvfaq/HDTV-FAQ.htm#Are%20DTV%20signals%20broadcast%20on%20special%20frequencies?

Notice how each CHANNEL has a range of FREQUENCIES assigned to it, and how many adjacent channels have space between them? (VHS 4&5,

Also, each channel actually has more than one precise frequency assigned to it - audio and video are carried on different frequencies. The sub-ranges in this range could potentially be used without interference, with modern radio equipment, where it couldn't have been used before.

So, yes, there are frequencies between channels, and channels do not equal frequencies, there isn't even a precisely 1:1 correlation, more like a 1:2 (one channel is two frequencies).

Re:What open frequencies?

[GooberToo]

The reason he made the distinction is because they are using the FREQUENCY BETWEEN CHANNELS; for example, between 12 and 13. That frequency is not currently a channel. Its frequency between channels. Thus asking about channels is completely incorrect.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Runaway1956]

Ever owned a CB radio? How about a ten meter radio? There are "channels" clearly marked on every box - but few of them actually have the frequencies marked. Cheaper transmitters tell you nothing about frequency. When you "upgrade" to a better radio, such as a Ranger, you get a frequency counter beside the channel selector. Yes, there are several frequencies in between channels. An ultracheap radio (or a radio in poor condition) can and will "bleed" across frequencies. But, with high quality equipment, you can crowd a dozen different conversations between any two channels, and none will interfere with each other. Also, commercial stations generally use a LOT of power, in an attempt to reach a wider audience. Reducing power stops a lot of that "bleeding" over onto other channels. Hooking a 1600 watt kicker up to even a high quality ham radio ensures that the signal bleeds across a wide spectrum. Add upper and lower sidebands, and FM, and you get a LOT of potential out of them. Television is little different. In fact - there are frequencies in the ham radio bands reserved for video. They have the very same characteristics that all the other radio frequencies have.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

Let's say there's a hundred Mhz between channels: So channel 12 is 1200 Mhz, channel 13 is 1300 Mhz,

What's the point of assuming something that is false? Channels 12 and 13 DON'T have any usable space between. They jut-up next to one another like books on a bookshelf.

Ya know for a "technical news for nerds" site, you guys sure are ignorant about how Broadcast TV actually works. I could overlook 1 person's lack of knowledge, because mistakes happen, but I've seen about 10 posts from engineers/technicians all claiming there's space between channels - and that's flat wrong.

Please. Look up the TV channel assignments - there's no space between channels. Like books on a shelf.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

Wikipedia is wrong because it is Outdated. It lists the old analog frequencies which did not use the full 6 megahertz-wide channel. The new digital TV does uses the full 6 megahertz width, leaving virtually no space between channels 12 and 13. Or any of the other VHF-hi and UHF channels.

And yes there are gaps between 4 and 5, plus 6 and 7, but those aren't empty spaces. 4-5 is filled with police/emergency radio; 6-7 is filled with FM radio. These are not open spaces you ignorant. (Not that there's anything wrong with being ignorant, but then you should LISTEN to TV experts instead of opening your mouth and repeating false info.)

Re:What open frequencies?

[DrgnDancer]

This is why I'm a computer systems engineer and not a broadcast engineer :-P

The point still stands in abstract though. If they could compress the channels into half the bandwidth, they could create new channels in between. "Channels" are just an artifice to make it easier to program devices. They are different sized ranges on different types of systems.

OK, I'm grasping at straws... you're pretty much right.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

they are using the FREQUENCY BETWEEN CHANNELS; for example, between 12 and 13

(sigh) I give up. NO THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN 12 AND 13. Jesus christ on a popsicle stick

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

How elitist of you to judge what people should or should not be allowed to watch. Also neither of those shows are even on Free broadcast TV. So what you're really criticizing is Pay TV, and supporting my point why people shouldn't have to pay for television.

Re:What open frequencies?

[leighklotz]

There's a small guard band of a few hertz, but that's not even wide enough to carry a dialup modem datalink (3000 hertz wide), much less a broadband internet connection.

Having made this same practical simplification on Slashdot before, I feel compelled to point out that it's incorrect.
3000 Hz is enough bandwidth for just about anything, if the signal to noise ratio is high enough, by the Shannon-Hartley theorem. To get 56K bits/sec out of a 3000 Hz channel, a 13 dB S/N ratio for the channel theoretically would be enough.

There are some coding techniques that approach the Shannon limit: Convolutional Codes, Turbo Codes, and LDPC Codes, the last of which can come arbitrarily close. Using one of these codes would allow you to get arbitrarily close to getting 56K bits/sec out of a 3000 Hz channel with 13 dB of S/N.

So, making a blanket statement about bandwidth-vs-bitrate is incorrect, though in practice, you're right that 3000 Hz isn't the whitespace that the FCC is talking about.

But practically speaking, you're right.

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

You may be technically right but a dialup modem has a nice clean phoneline, so it can do 33k (analog) or 56k (digital). Real world wireless broadcasting is noisy. If I recall correctly, AM-HD Radio operates in a 10,000 hertz wide channel and gets 30 kbit/s maximum. Digital Radio Mondiale gets 35 kbit/s. So multiplying by 1/3rd for a 3000 hertz width == very very slow datarate of only ~10k. So even if two TV channels did have 3000 hertz between them, it wouldn't be practical to use it for wireless internet devices.
.

>>>that 3000 Hz isn't the whitespace that the FCC is talking about.

Nope. Their word "whitespace" refers to UNUSED CHANNELS.

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If they could compress the channels into half the bandwidth, they could create new channels in between.

Digital TV does that..... sort of. The channel is still the same bandwidth as designated back in the 1930s (6 megahertz wide) but the owner of that channel, say WNBC, is free to multiplex it any way they desire. They can have 1 program..... of they can have 12 different programs. But whichever one they choose, the whole channel is used. \

On a spectrum analyzer it looks like a "noisy logic 1" with exactly 6 megahertz width. (The actual height varies with the power output.)

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the proposal is not for the wi-fi to use 44 or 46. It's for them to use the space BETWEEN 44 and 45

BABYLON

Wrong
wrong
wrong
wrong
wrong

(5) :-) There is no space between channels 44 and 45. They coexist side-by-side without any usable space. You might be able to squeeze a 10 kbit/s streaming radio station through there, but that's it. 44 and 45 are up against another like two teens on prom night. No space between. When the FCC talks about "whitespace" they are talking about the unused CHANNELS not the space between channels.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't actually do the math, since I couldn't find the various bit rates quickly. Could you really fit 12 SD channels at the lowest ATSC resolution in the 6 MHz band?

Re:What open frequencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO space between channels 44 & 45. Take a look at VHF/UHF frequency chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_broadcast_television_frequencies#VHF_bands

Channel 44 is frequency of 650 to 656 Mhz
Channel 45 is frequency of 656 to 662 Mhz

Re:What open frequencies?

[Sepodati]

>> Channels 12 and 13 DON'T have any usable space between

In the context of these whitespace devices, you are right. The devices can only use entire TV channels/frequencies that are currently unused. If Channel 12 is used in the area, no part of it can be used by these whitespace devices. They don't operate in the guard bands between channels, only on unused channels (and with power restrictions when adjacent channels are occupied, at that).

In the context of pure spectrum, you're wrong, though. There are guard bands between the two channels, but I couldn't find out an estimate for what size they are. Also, since the 6MHz spectrum is channelized according to what content the station is putting out, there could be unused spectrum within each channel. If channel 12 is only putting out a single HD video stream, some of it's 6MHz spectrum is not being used. If it's doing an HD stream, SD stream and a mobile TV stream, then it's likely that all of it is being used. A truly cognitive radio could squeeze into all of these areas, but that's not what these whitespace devices are doing.

-John

Re:What open frequencies?

[Sepodati]

>> Freeing up frequencies for Wifi does not have to fall
>> within the constraint of "channels" because you won't
>> be using a television to "tune in" to them.
>> To reiterate, they're NOT the same thing.

In the context of these whitespace devices, they are. Whitespace devices are authorized to operate on unused TV channels.

-John

Re:What open frequencies?

[Sepodati]

>> it's for them to use the space BETWEEN 44 and 45

No... whitespace devices are only authorized on unused TV channels.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Lord_Byron]

Well, if 10 and 11 are strong signals in your area, then whitespaces devices won't use the frequencies associated with those channels there. Instead, it'll pick some other nice frequency, that no one is using. If there *are* no vacant frequencies, it won't work - I hope they've got some sort of plan in place for those areas. (Maybe use part of the 698-806MHz range that I've heard the DTV transition is supposed to free up, if they cut a deal with the new owner of that chunk of spectrum. Dunno what the other primary users of parts of those frequencies think of this idea.)

Re:What open frequencies?

[Lord_Byron]

Well, they really aren't interchangeable - "Channel 12" has a frequency associated with it. So does "FM88", and it isn't 88MHz. (In the US is might be 88.1, 88.3, 88.5, 88.7, or 88.9.) Also, I've never heard anyone say anything like "I tuned to frequency 12 to watch the news." And yeah, I'm American.

All that aside, to answer your question: the "open" channels will be the ones that are not broadcasting in the area the whitespace device is operating. I'm just over 50 miles from a major metro, and can barely get anything on TV over the air, before or after the transition. I imagine as you turn the dial between channels on your TV, you'll find one or more where there is no usable TV reception. This is where the whitespace device will camp out. When it moves to a new place (or a TV transmitter turns on, or its signal improves) the whitespace device will move OFF that frequency. They are built with sensitive receivers for the purpose of detecting this condition.

Re:What open frequencies?

[gmhowell]

Channel 2 in Baltimore, 4 and 5 in DC.

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

698-806MHz range has already been assigned to Cellphone companies plus Emergency Digital Radio. It's already gone

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

If you had a CM4228 antenna you'd get all kinds of channels. I know I get channels 60 miles away. I would be annoyed if I was trying to watch one of those, and some kid turns on his Whitespace-capable Ipad directly over top of my channel, because it "detected" the channel is free (even though it isn't really).

Re:What open frequencies?

[theaveng]

I didn't actually do the math, since I couldn't find the various bit rates quickly. Could you really fit 12 SD channels at the lowest ATSC resolution in the 6 MHz band?

You can fit as many channels as you want. Say you want to do 240p/24 video at dialup speed (50k), so that's over 300 channels. Unfortunately ATSC only counts to 99 so that's the arbitrary limit picked by the designers. That works out to 19000/99 == ~170k per program.

Most stations do 2-3 programs per channel. Trinity Broadcast Network does 5, and some stations in South California do 12 because they carry programs from Mexico, India, and other languages that cater to local immigrants.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Sepodati]

On a spectrum analyzer it looks like a "noisy logic 1" with exactly 6 megahertz width. (The actual height varies with the power output.)

I found this explanation of 8VSB modulation that explains your comment fairly well, I think. I was under the assumption that a single HD stream of ~9Mbps on a ~19Mbps 6MHz channel may not use the entire 6MHz and leave some spectrum open. It doesn't appear that this is the case, though.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Sepodati]

Could you really fit 12 SD channels at the lowest ATSC resolution in the 6 MHz band

This wiki page has a nice chart showing how the subchannels can be organized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel

Re:What open frequencies?

[commodore64_love]

>>>They're referring to spectrum space in between "channels."

Sorry that's wrong.

(1) There's no space between TV channels. They all run directly next to one another, like books on a shelf.

(2) The white space devices operate ON channel not between channels. So if there was an empty slot at 50, the device on connect to the internet ON channel 50.

(3) The problem is that 50 is not open in the northeast. It's occupied. The entire TV band is full.

Re:What open frequencies?

[Yamata no Orochi]

(1) There's no space between TV channels. They all run directly next to one another, like books on a shelf.

That's not how frequency works, no. It's quantized arbitrarily into numbers, it isn't literally a block in space.

(2) The white space devices operate ON channel not between channels. So if there was an empty slot at 50, the device on connect to the internet ON channel 50.

If this is the case then that's an entirely different matter. The article doesn't mention that, but I don't have reason to argue if you've heard otherwise.

(3) The problem is that 50 is not open in the northeast. It's occupied. The entire TV band is full.

The article and materials I've read previously on the matter suggest that opening whitespace is regional, and for instance "channel 50" wouldn't be available for this use in areas where it was already in use for TV or something.

You can have my Mr. Microphone

[jjeffries]

when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Hey good lookin, we'll be back to pick you up later!

Re:You can have my Mr. Microphone

[east coast]

LOL. If not for the lack of mod points...

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[Yamata no Orochi]

The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, but the FCC plans to vote next week on rules meant to resolve those issues.

Why can't those politicians vote on something more useful, like repealing the law of gravity, or laws of thermodynamics? I'm sure its likely to be equally successful.

What are you talking about? "Rules to resolve issues" doesn't sound anything like anyone implying magical physics-breaking measures, it sounds like regulations on exact frequency and signal-strength, which there would obviously be anyway. Sensationalist much?

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't those politicians vote on something more useful, like repealing the law of gravity, or laws of thermodynamics? I'm sure its likely to be equally successful.

Because if they repeal the law of gravity, planes are going to crash in space. Duh!

Jamming Concerns.

[dmgxmichael]

Once devices are built that are able to broadcast on these frequencies it would stand to reason that staying off the frequencies when they are "occupied" will be regulated by software. How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[Atryn]

How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?

Broadcasting on frequencies you shouldn't be is trivial and can be done with off-the-shelf equipment today very easily. Its also illegal and not that hard to locate the broadcast antenna. I wouldn't even call this activity "hacking"... its just unlicensed broadcasting in a licensed band.

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[theaveng]

About one week. Trying to watch the game on channel 10? Well too bad because the hacker kid next door is broadcasting over top of it. And even though FCC rules require people to turn off TV Band whitespace gadgets if they interfere with licensed TV reception, there's no way to enforce those rules. The kid can just ignore your request
.

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[TheSync]

How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?

This isn't the real problem, TV band Broadband Devices (TVBD) will cause problems as described in this article:

My experiments convince me that third-order distortion products generated by a triplet of strong broadband signals from nearby TVBD radiating 4 watts may cause loss of DTV reception on any of a large number of channels. This interference mechanism is not recognized by the FCC as a significant threat to DTV reception.

I think it is lunacy to try to share a "dumb broadcast" band with tens of millions unlicensed, uncoordinated agile devices because of all the intermodulation and distortion product issues (which we have to deal with already between existing DTV transmitters). You should have all dumb or all agile on a single band.

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[dmgxmichael]

How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?

Broadcasting on frequencies you shouldn't be is trivial and can be done with off-the-shelf equipment today very easily. Its also illegal and not that hard to locate the broadcast antenna. I wouldn't even call this activity "hacking"... its just unlicensed broadcasting in a licensed band.

For someone trained in such yeah. For a script kiddie - not so much. This would make it absurdly easy (read script kiddie level) to do and the nuisance value could be quite high. I hope the FCC has thought this out. Abuse is always possible, but it shouldn't be too easy or else it will become commonplace.

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforce compliance via fines.

Sorry Timmy dad you get to pay a fine of $5,000 for unlawful transmission into licensed space without a license. Why? Timmy thought it was "cool" to hack his whitespace device.
Pretty soon Timmy is either going to be too busy mowing lawns or in too much pain for the whipping he just got to jam anything.

The nice thing about jamming is it is defacto very easy to locate.

Re:Jamming Concerns.

[bendodge]

Once devices are built that are able to broadcast on these frequencies it would stand to reason that staying off the frequencies when they are "occupied" will be regulated by software. How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?

How long before a hacker mods a cell phone transmitter to jam cell phone frequencies? How long before a hacker modifies a GPS, FM Radio, Bluetooth transmitter, or anything else to jam X frequency? Jammers are easy, cheap, and widely available. However, the world has not come to a halt yet. Hey, even my WRT54G has the ability to transmit on the wrong channels just by changing an option in the web console.

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[DrgnDancer]

Maybe he's planning to broadcast the event on the "white space" frequencies. It's not like the FCC will be able to fine him afterward.

Beware of 'the public'

[drcheap]

Think of what is going to happen when the general public learns of this. I'm going to be asked by so many people...

"So the old TV channels are now this super wifi thingy? Does that mean I can now surf the web with my old TV?"

Re:Beware of 'the public'

[ShadowFalls]

Just tell them to make sure they waterproof it first.

NO

[bussdriver]

The bean counters nick and dime customers to death for sake of the ever increasing STOCK VALUE because its not a matter of profitability but of how much GROWTH and even the 2nd and possibly 3rd derivatives of anticipated value (and its not directly linked with profitability; more with perception and herd mentality.)

The TAX they pay to use OUR airwaves should be paid, we can't give away OUR collective property to just anybody to exploit; although, we do too much of this already with dire consequences... Sure it is pushed onto customers as overhead cost - but those customers are using OUR collective property too and are not 100% of the public but a minority who again is using OUR property and should pay US for their exclusive use.

If we were WISE we would have government handle the whole mess like they've done with the highway system, water, sewer, power grid -- by making the airwaves a public right of way that anybody can use if they follow the laws. How? Well, create a new digital network where multiple users can share the bandwidth similar to how we do on the internet. No Mhz range licensed monopolies but bandwidth allocations over the same bandwidth. The towers can be government handled (like the roads) -- and as many know, laws force phones and power into rural areas because private corps would never have done it on their own - the cost of this is on your bill usually itemized out - so either way you are paying for it except a gov run system would be faster to move into rural areas and lack a profit motive (which in decently managed governments would cost less than the corruption costs of having government do it.) Of course, I'm a socialist communist pinko for suggesting this-- because we shouldn't have public land, public resources, libraries, fire, police, roads, bridges, water, sewer, etc.

The fact our democracy is functionally dead is another matter altogether.

Re:NO

[theaveng]

You're not a communist pinko. You just don't seem to realize that government is horribly inefficient, due to a white collar welfare mentality (people don't get laid off even when work is slow). I know. I work there. Or see the recent article about a UK website that cost ~100 million dollars per year to maintain. Rather than choose inefficient monopoly, I'd prefer to have a pro-choice solution between multiple corporations, all competing to make the pricetag as cheap as possible.

Also you used the roads as example, but for me that's an argument *against* government. Falling bridges, potholes, and ridiculous congestion because government is unwilling to add new highways (like an I-85 running parallel to I-95). Of course I can't think of a better alternative for roads due to their natural monopoly aspect, but that doesn't mean I want that model applies to communications.

And finally: You use water, sewer, power grid as secondary examples, but where I live NONE of these are government owned or operated. They are private, regulated companies. That's how we should treat folks like Comcast or Verizon.

Re:NO

[bussdriver]

Government well regulated which does not happen all that often and promotes corruption which is what I've seen more of. I've seen well run government where it beat the private sector and I've seen it be a close call too.

Something people often forget is GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE, in a democracy this should be obvious but other forms it is indirectly the public's fault for the actions of their government. You need to stop thinking of government as something you are not a part of-- yet hypocritically you probably go vote... there is more than voting and then there is informed voting...

BTW, Clinton rode the GOP wave to the housing crash he didn't cause it all by himself. He's more like an old sane republican from decades ago on many issues. Corporate democrats are not far from corporate republicans (its mostly marketing style.. good cop/bad cop)

Re:NO

[theaveng]

GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE

Disagree. "Government" is actually leaders who are hungry for power & wealth... mostly power. They are a danger to the people, as has been proved again and again throughout history, even in Democracies. (The Athenian Democracy executed Socrates because he exercised his free speech and taught philosophy to people.) (The Roman Democratic Republic executed its own citizens, mostly christians and jews.)

Government is not the People. Government is power--hungry leaders that are a clear-and-present danger to the people. ~150 million people were killed by their OWN governments during the 1900s (deliberately - aka genocide). That's more than any other entity, even corporations, have deliberately killed.

It is why we have a Constitution - to chain the government/leaders and limit how much damage they can cause.

Potential dissent

[trickofperspective]

"The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with... wireless microphones"

So what's the over/under for the NSA torpedoing the plan?

Phased Arrays Yet?

[Doc Ruby]

Phased array antennas can detect the 3D position of the source of a signal, distinguished from other transmitter locations sending on the same frequency. It's how humans with eyes can tell there's two blades of grass in front of them, not just "it's green out".

A phased array could make frequency segregation unnecessary, and vastly increase bandwidth without interference. By doing so, it would completely destroy the entire basis of the FCC, except as certification that phased array devices work properly.

How far along has phased array tech come for either stationary devices like base stations, relocatable ones like notebooks, or low power ones like phones? Products with these features are long overdue, and mobile telecom will be revolutionized by them.

Re:Phased Arrays Yet?

[russotto]

Phased array antennas can detect the 3D position of the source of a signal, distinguished from other transmitter locations sending on the same frequency. It's how humans with eyes can tell there's two blades of grass in front of them, not just "it's green out".

Problem is that at VHF and UHF frequencies, the atmosphere looks like wavy glass (often in motion) and there's funhouse mirrors everywhere.

Re:Phased Arrays Yet?

[s122604]

"By doing so, it would completely destroy the entire basis of the FCC" -- I think that is a tad premature...
Google adaptive beam-forming, this is what you are referring to. It is used in the electronic warfare field, and a crude version of it has even made its way into some lower power consumer equipment like N-band routers...Creating an adaptable phased array directional enough to null out, to the point of non-interference one of two powerful/closely located transmitters is no easy, or cheap task.

Also, we aren't talking about a 2.4GHZ router. On the low end of UHF, there is also a significant size/portability issue governed by physics/antenna theory that won't be solved even if you figured out the economic issue.
The idea that adaptive beamforming is going to come to every piece of consumer VHF/UHF equipment and make the FCC irrelevant is wildly optimistic

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[cpicon92]

Please reconsider. Just because your life left you doesn't mean that people don't love you. Taking your life would be a selfish thing to do.

Where do you start?

[bjk002]

"life without wi-fi is not worth living"

That is one of the saddest comments I have ever read.

Re:Where do you start?

[mrsquid0]

Yes, it is, although you omitted the part of what I said that puts it into context. I wonder what my children will consider life unbearable without.

Re:Where do you start?

[AshtangiMan]

Hopefully they will be more enlightened than you. I am older than you (I'm guessing) and your sweeping generalization about what my generation's view on life without tv would be is absurd.

Re:Where do you start?

[bjk002]

The omission was intentional, and also irrelevant to the point.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume I'm "much" older than you.

My value of life was never tied to the existence of TV. Would life be different? Surely. Still worth living? Need I really answer?

Re:Where do you start?

[mrsquid0]

I guess that the lesson here is that one should never assume that a reader is capable of getting the joke.

Re:Where do you start?

[Runaway1956]

I can put that television in yet another perspective for you. With the exception of a few shows, I HATED television. I would rather go to my room with a book, or outside (with or without the book) or to the basement to tinker on whatever I could find to tear apart and rebuild. To me, the television was usually a blaring distraction from the important things in life! Still is, now that I think about it . . . . Oh - the exceptions? Lost in Space. Star Trek. For a short while, Saturday Night Live. Way back in the mists of my memory, I remember being amused by saturday morning cartoons, but by the time I was in junior high school, those cartoons were just breakfast cereal advertisements for the most part.

This sounds great, but...

[Jedi74]

...where can I buy a Wi-Fi enabled smart phone *without* the required $30/month data package (i.e. penalty)?

Cheers,
Luker

Re:This sounds great, but...

[natehoy]

Nokia 5800 ExpressMusic. The Unlocked GSM North America edition (assuming you are in the US, and OK with only being able to choose between GSM carriers) was $250 last time I checked. That's about what we paid for it. Data works just fine over my home WiFi connection, and anywhere else you can get access to a WiFi access point. Best part: To your carrier, it's a dumb phone - you can use the GPS and the WiFi and the camera and all the other features and no carrier can tell you you can't, because you are just inserting their damned SIM card and making voice calls.

You CAN use their data plan (and the phone wants to, by default, so be sure you disable the WAN access points for data before you start using lots of data, I spent $10 learning that lesson!). But you can also disable it and tell the phone it can only get data from WiFi, and the phone does this quite nicely. Obviously, the Web browser and data-based apps get cranky when you get out of range, but that's to be expected.

My wife owns one. She wanted a phone she could do things like grocery lists and Facebook on, but didn't really feel a compelling need to connect all the time. Previously, she had a dumb phone and an iPod Touch she carried around, and she wanted to consolidate both to a single device. So now she has a smartphone that she can only use data on when she's at home.

However, being a Symbian phone, this has met her needs pretty damned well. You can work around the lack of a "fully mobile" data plan quite nicely for a lot of things, though obviously not everything.

  - UpVise has a shopping list that syncs between your online account and the locally-stored data only when a connection is available. She goes on the Web, updates her shopping list, then syncs it to her phone before she goes to the store. At the store, she ticks off the things she's bought. When she gets back in WiFi range at home, her shopping list is updated on the Web to reflect what she's bought.
  - Google allows her to sync email, calendar, and contacts to/from her phone, so she can manage her phone's contacts list on Google, or on the phone, and it syncs between them whenever she is in range. So she can't get email unless she's at a WiFi point, but if we need to communicate, the phone bits work just fine.
  - Facebook requires a data connection to do anything with it, but she only does that at home anyway, so she doesn't care.
  - Symbian's "Ovi Maps" allows you to store maps locally on the phone, and does voice-directed GPS routing using the locally-stored maps. The only thing she doesn't get is traffic updates, but she can use the GPS for voice-directed driving without a data plan.
  - All other apps that don't require constant data (games, etc) can be installed using WiFi when she's at home, then once they are installed they just run, with or without a data plan.

Supposedly, Skype supports Symbian and her phone even has a little front camera to do video conferencing. We haven't tried it, she's got a netbook for that sort of thing with a bigger screen.

Re:This sounds great, but...

[Brianwa]

I got mine at Target. It still came for "free" with a two year extension of my contract, and the guy behind the counter didn't even know what a data plan was.

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[bjk002]

" Dear Slashdot, I'm killing myself. My wife left me today. Go to hell, J.S. "

You first!

Re:FUCK THE WORLD

[rwa2]

Probably feeding the trolls, but http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

Anyway, your wife leaving you should be a good thing.

And sure, she's probably taking half of what you own and half of what you'll be making for the foreseeable future. But hey! You have your life back!

(addressed to GP)

toll roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Toll roads *suck*, it's like double taxation. We *already* pay road use taxes with our fuel surcharges at the pump. Toll roads, except on totally private land, should be abolished.

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[theaveng]

Free TV is:

- Equivalent to sending 60 million Bluray Discs to every home in Boston, every single month.
- And another 60 million Blurays to every home in New York City, every single month.
- And another 60 million to every home in Philadelphia, every single month.
- And another 60 million to every home in Baltimore, every single month...

times all 200 television markets. All at Zero cost to the consumers. If you have 2 or 3 TVs/DVRs then double or triple the above numbers.

wait...broadcast TV is still alive?

[dAzED1]

next you'll be telling me people still listen to actual "radio" stations, versus stations on pandora/live365/XM/etc.

Silly talk. What year is this? Isn't our Jupiter orbiter with a crazy AI neighbored by a super-massive baby by now?

Re:wait...broadcast TV is still alive?

[TheDormouse]

Since broadcast went digital, I know lots of folks (me being just one) who dropped cable TV and busted out the rabbit ears. HD over-the-air + Netflix streaming + DVDs of whatever isn't available OTA or Netflix = happy wallet.

If the game is only on cable, go to a friend's house with cable or watch it at a sports bar for the price of some nachos.

Re:wait...broadcast TV is still alive?

[dAzED1]

I guess sports is where the problem doesn't exist for me; I'll occasionally watch a sport game on TV, but if I do it will always be at a larger social gathering. I never would sit at home watching a football game alone or with just a few people; that sort of activity is dying off, btw. There's a real world out there that is much more interesting than watching a bunch of men run around in tight pants wrestling with each other. To me, at least ;)

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[Yamata no Orochi]

Why are you spamming this irrelevant nonsense across so many threads? Cut it out.

Ok, I can't wait to hear...

[sean.peters]

... how you intend to "transmit" TV signals without using bandwidth. If you're going to broadcast TV at all, you're either sending signals over the air (and using some part of the RF spectrum) or you're sending them via cable. And sure, a lot of people do get their television via cable... but similarly, a lot of people can't afford or aren't within the service area for cable.

Cognitive Radio

[erice]

This is tentative step toward cognitive radio.

They are reusing channels that are allocated for television but not actually in use for that purpose in particular areas. TV is pretty easy to work with. There are few, powerful, transmitters and they transmit all the time. In TFA, some even suggested using GPS and a database to figure out which channels are available.

That's pretty crude. In a fully cognitive radio system, the device listens for transmitters on a range of frequencies. If it finds open spectrum, it sets up shop. This can be tricky as it has to distinguish vacant channels from ones that are occupied but with a weak signal. Also, the owner could simply be off line. When the licensed transmitter comes back, the cognitive radios must vacate.

Still, the potential is huge. In principle, *all* licensed bands could be reused by cognitive radios. At any given time and space, a great deal of valuable spectrum is simply wasted. The licensee, if they even exist in this area, isn't using the channel and no one else is allowed. Cognitive radio would open up those regions to the rest of us.

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[Sepodati]

You forgot the "and only 15% of the people making any use of what you're sending out" part.

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[theaveng]

Actually that number jumped to 20% this past year (since the analog shutoff), because of the poor economy and people quitting their cable TV for the Free TV alternative

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[vlm]

"Rules to resolve issues" doesn't sound anything like anyone implying magical physics-breaking measures, it sounds like regulations on exact frequency and signal-strength, which there would obviously be anyway.

Cool, we can send those regs back in time, so the installed base of equipment will not be interfered with. Obvious and simple.

Great err what about the antennae

[aramosfet]

Great my next wifi laptop will come with a 1 foot yagi uda array antenna!

Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics?

[Yamata no Orochi]

Cool, we can send those regs back in time, so the installed base of equipment will not be interfered with. Obvious and simple.

Both because you know ahead of the time that those rules will "interfere" with pre-existing equipment, and because it simply CANNOT BE ALLOWED that regulation changes affect anything already in place.

What was your point again?

Yes

[bussdriver]

Government of any kind rises and falls on the backs of its citizens. They ultimately are responsible for it; that responsibility may be too small and abstract for most people but during bad enough times a large enough group wakes up to their true power and revolution happens.

The constitution exists because of the peoples' support of it and it's irrelevance and lack of power is ALSO a result of the citizen. As Franklin predicted, all gov fall into despotism and a democratic one does when the people allow it to do so; which eventually error by error the group collectively fucks up - which manifests in their government.

This kind of government is MORE representative of the public than the others which lack their involvement - making their portion of the blame LARGER. We didn't wimp out over a dictator take over, we just didn't pay attention and learn think past the propaganda (marketing.)

If one was to civilize the process of governments, they would make a system where peaceful revolutions against the establishment are possible and this leads to democracies which is 1 way to implement the natural social process that is government. If the rules are not enforced then the game becomes irrelevant; problem is that people don't see it like a virtual machine - its just 1 big OS to them. You can't get back the VM once it is compromised even if an honest client OS is installed.

--

Clinton didn't cause the crash. The high priests we allowed to be unchained turned around 1st chance they had and screwed us all. We didn't care when their regulator (Clinton/congress) didn't put up a fight when McCain's economic adviser successfully attached the holy deregulation to a larger bill. The FDR "socialist" regulations remaining are the only thing that gave us time to respond to the crisis we created.