Correct on all counts, but to make a general statement on the parent post: You will fall under the most restrictive TSA inspection requirements when operating under CFR 14 Part 121 (regularly scheduled air lines). When the TSA tried to impose more stringent rules on Part 91 (general) and Part 135 (commuter, air-taxi, sightseeing) operations they got screamed at and backed off for the time being. They tried to implement tighter security on aircraft with a gross weight of greater than 12,500lbs but that has been tabled for now.
So, as a CFR 14 Part 91 operator (and probably as a Part 135) I could (in theory) park my plane at JFK airport at the SheltAir FBO, do some sightseeing and grab a bunch of friends. When we all come back there is no (or little) security and with little more than a wave to the lineman and the ok from ground control I am taxiing on my way. Even if I'm flying a Boeing 737 like John Travolta.
about a year ago when i closed my google account(s). same with facebook, although if their shadow-profiling is any indication of 'how its done' then you can expect google to start silently tracking the same inferential data about you as a person instead..
either may have started as amicable services, but both have rapidly evolved into a flagrant, unapologetic breeches of privacy.
My previous employer required me to have a Google account (manager would publish the schedule on Google Docs). I left the job, closed the account and once closed tried to log back in. Google gave me a message to the effect that the name and password don't match / that there is no account so I go on with my life. Today I see that I need to tell Google to delete my history and decide to try to log in using my old username and password. Surprise! Google lets me log into an account that I definitely closed a year ago. Don't be evil my ass.
I have one of last year's versions of Sony's Reader (PRS-650), it's stamped 'Made in China'. I have no reason to doubt that the others are any different.
At this point the FCC makes freely available all test questions and answers. They have also done away with the oral portions of the exams as well as the morse requirements for every license except radiotelegraph operators. This makes the cram method especially prevalent. Some of the companies that you refer to still exist but now they simply publish the questions and answers with some minor bit of explanations; some also publish practice exam software. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class radiotelephone operator licenses have been done away with and are now replaced by the General Radiotelephone Operator License (GROL) which, as I understand it, is the (from a technical knowledge standpoint) equivalent of a 2nd class radiotelephone license. The broadcast endorsement has been done away with and is no longer required for commercial broadcast radio. DJs certainly don't need it though I imagine that getting a job as an engineer with a radio station without a license is probably pretty difficult even if not legally required. Commercial licenses are still required for operation and repair of nautical stations and equipment and for repair (but not operation) of domestic aeronautical stations and equipment.
On the FAA side, they used to publish both question and answer pools like the FCC but came under fire for it a few years back and no longer do this. They do release a few sample questions but the vast majority of the pools are not available so you end up with a situation much like these doctors where people will remember what was on the test and forward the questions and answer options on to prep companies. Some do a really good job of creating a curriculum where the student actually learns the material, others do just like the FCC prep companies and publish books of questions and answers with some bit of explanation. The FAA retains the oral portion so in theory, an applicant who has memorized the written exam could still be caught by an examiner when asked to explain the theory of a given topic. And, obviously, the FAA also retains the practical exam as well. Of course life is not perfect and some students only want to study for (and some instructors are only too happy to teach for) the tests and nothing else.
As background: I took my Extra Class amateur radio license test in 2007 and private pilot tests in 2010. I am currently studying for my GROL and instrument pilot tests.
True, but I think the issue came up in central Florida because the 'space coast' is primarily a final assembly and launch site. As such it saw far more job losses (both at the local contract corps. and KSC itself) than the other NASA locations that have large administrative, research or testing mandates. Not that those tasks aren't performed in Florida, they are simply on a much smaller scale than elsewhere.
Maybe this will come up again in Alabama, but MSFC has a much smaller per capita affected community than Florida and the remaining sites still seem to be fairly busy with basic and applied research, satellite and rover operations, ISS ops, etc.
... Rumble strips violently rock the whole car and make a loud, disturbing noise.
That sound may be disturbing if you are a responsible driver who may for one reason or another have momentarily lapsed in control of your vehicle. Out in Las Vegas the sun destroys painted lines so quickly that they have more or less given up repainting them and now delineate lanes with little round plastic domes. I've seen many times where a drunk driver will use that 'loud, disturbing noise' to navigate. They call it driving by Braille. You and I consider that noise to be disturbing, they consider it to be reassuring. It's one of the reasons that I will absolutely not be out on the roads tonight (New Years Eve).
Most school boards in the U.S. are filled by elected officials. Election to the school board is often considered an entry level position into the field of politics. Many people who seek election to the school board are only using it as a stepping stone to higher elected office. Few seem to actually care about the institution that they have been elected to lead; it's all about how they can parlay that into a more influential position by the next election cycle or two.
The citizens of a given district bear the responsibility for this as most choose not to research whom they are voting for because to most people it's a position that they don't care about, even if they have children in public schools. For most of the electorate it's all about the prestigious presidential and national congressional races. They couldn't care less about anything below the national level and certainly not about what happens in their own backyard. When things do go wrong at home, they expect their congresscritter in Washington to fix it rather than taking a few hours to research and elect the right people locally in the first place.
We find the conclusions reached by Consumer Reports to be not only ridiculous but completely baseless as well. Our company would like to believe that it's service would be given a fair and unbalanced evaluation in the market but that is apparently too much to ask. Below we have chosen to refute a few of the more egregious claims leveled by so-called Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports asserts that AT&T's customer service is below average. This is completely untrue. Not a single member of our executive board had trouble reaching a service representative. All of our executive board member's questions were answered politely and completely. They were even told to have a nice day as they disconnected.
As to the statements that our system coverage is sub-par; they have obviously failed to take note of our previously stated plans to at some undefined point in the future to potentially undertake some form of consideration on the concept of improving coverage and building out our meaninglessly named 4G network. We are truly serious about thinking about these things and we believe that we should be given extra credit for taking the time out of our very busy day to contemplate things of this ilk.
We support our troops, orphans, nuns and puppies.
To the assertion that our customer satisfaction ranks at the bottom of the list. Completely untrue! Our internally generated satisfaction matrices inform us that customer satisfaction has never been higher. Our P.R. Department confirms that they believe our internal numbers to be accurate and will sign sworn statements to this effect. In short, we believe our customers love us.
In conclusion, we feel that this is yet another attempt by our enemies in the FCC, the Obama administration, Sprint and the Society for Creative Anachronism to slander our company's good name and prevent our monopoly from succeeding as planned.
We need government intervention they claim; right up until the next revelation is that Carrier IQ's biggest client is the United States government. Whoopsies!
And, if she writes as poorly as she speaks, I can think of few more horrifying ways to spend a Sunday afternoon than wading through the disjointed ramblings of Ms. Palin.
I believe that your latter conclusion of M. Organic Brain Damage's post is the correct interpretation. Certainly a single Goldman Sachs bond trader is not worth 2,000,000 Congolese, however, based on our (the United States) actions, a dispasionate observer could assume that our society has come to the conclusion that he is.
I am well aware that on a nightly basis I oversee the operation of nearly 75 illegal radio stations. Unfortunately, the FCC has not seen fit to provide a way for me or my colleagues to operate legally.
The only entities eligible for licenses for the operation of wireless microphones are news gathering organizations and film producers. This policy leaves out live entertainment which are the vast majority of users. Any time you see a concert, theatrical production, sporting event, or even a political rally, if those microphones weren't provided by a news organization or film crew covering the event they are being illegally operated. Any time McCain or Obama gets on stage with a wireless mic to address the crowd, or a coach calls a play to a quarterback via wireless intercom, those are all illegal uses of wireless microphones. The President doesn't break the law because the Secret Service doesn't trust wireless microphones (or even phantom powered mics for that matter) and so he has two wired Shure SM57 microphones on his lectern. Rest assured, it's not because he can't get a license (though technically he can't).
The FCC turns a blind eye to our usage for the most part because we try very hard to be good neighbors. If any issues arise, we are the ones to move or cease transmission. We do our best to not cause interference to any users because we have no legal standing to operate; and we cooperate with our fellow colleagues so that issues are worked out amongst ourselves.
You are right in that there is a double standard. The difference is that at the end of the day, I and my fellow operators are watching to make sure that we don't cause problems and to proactively keep things that way. The average user of a white-space device cannot be expected to exercise the same due-diligence so the FCC is insuring that the devices do the work for them.
I too would suspect that a device capable of using the interstitial spaces of an active channel would be capable of detecting an RF microphone but I don't know what the FCC wanted Google's device to do. Was it supposed to simply stay off active transmitters or did they want it to flag any and all transmitters in the pass-band?
I've only heard third-hand reports of what happened at the test as the results (to my knowledge) haven't been made public yet. Judging by the article, your comment, and a large amount of wild-ass guessing on my part I would imagine that the FCC wanted them to flag anything and everything in the pass-band but that Google's device saw an active television channel, noted it but didn't analyze it's interstitial spaces, and moved on.
That could be good as that could say that the device would not attempt to use small gaps between transmitters in a crowded RF environment. However, that would seem an odd outcome for a device that (I assume) is designed to take advantage of those same small gaps.
On the other hand, it could be bad as that could mean the device does not perform due diligence in seeking low power transmitters.
Without knowing the FCC's intentions, it's hard to speculate.
On a personal note (apologies as I couldn't help but checking out your call-sign), your name seems familiar and I think we've worked together (or at least met) previously but I can't place where. Did you ever work for PWS or with Stoffo?
I cannot speak for the FCC's motives in devising the test the way they did. Certainly the test is designed around conditions as they are, or more accurately, as they can be and not how they most likely will be in the future.
I would imagine that your characterization of some FCC guy thinking that he's being clever is probably right on the mark. The FCC knowledge tests are full of this "clever" thinking. Both the amateur and commercial radio tests have trick questions and what ifs, as well as lots of out of date questions. There is no reason for me to think that they wouldn't do the same thing in a practical test as well.
IE: in the current commercial GROL exam there are several questions relating to the OMEGA navigation system. As of the end of this month that system will have been officially deactivated for 11 years.
All that said, I still don't believe that the test was rigged as it is representative of possible current conditions. The FCC may have been trying to make a point that the designers of the white-space devices need to think a little more outside of the box as to what might be using apparently free spectrum, or where there might be available space in apparently used spectrum. There might be a wireless microphone there or there might not. The trick of putting low power transmitters inside an operating television channel is one of last resort. At the same time one also never knows when a HAM radio operator might pop up.
However, I would allow that the test is disingenuous in that it is not likely to be representative of the conditions that the white-space devices should encounter when the would be authorized for use. Using that criteria (current / obsolete vs expected future), I understand your contention that the testing was rigged.
It takes only a moment to see that it was a rigged test because the wireless Internet device did NOT interfere with the microphone, because it did successfully detect the local television station that was broadcasting on that frequency and therefore did not try to use it. Analog TV stations are some seriously high power broad spectrum noise. Any frequency-hopping wireless Internet device would be useless attempting to use the same frequency and would obviously move on to another part of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interfering with the TV station and any other device being masked by it. That part will be conveniently left out of the headlines. The fact that the wireless microphone itself may have been useless while attempting to use that frequency, due to interference from the television station, will also be left out.
The test is not rigged. I have been doing RF coordination for entertainment professionally for about a decade now and I can assure that with this test the FCC has highlighted one major strategy that we use in crowded RF environments.
An analog television station is not the high power broadband noise machine you make it out to be. An NTSC analog signal takes up 6MHz of bandwidth in the radio spectrum. That signal is actually made up of three distinct signals that are modulated into one channel; those signals are a video carrier, a chromance sub-carrier (color) and a sound sub-carrier. Those signals take up a few 100kHz of bandwidth and are separated by a few 100kHz.
The standard RF microphone used for stage, television and film production has a peak bandwidth of ~ +/- 56kHz or a grand total of ~112kHz total deviation. With that small usage of bandwidth we can fit three microphones into an operating analog television channel without causing interference to the primary spectrum user.
The FCC test seems to be showing that Google's engineers are unaware of this strategy employed by RF coordinators and that if their device decided to employ the same strategy, it would interfere with the operating microphone within the analog television channel.
Mind you, this becomes moot on 19 February 2009 as we cannot do this trick with a digital ATSC signal. That is the high-power noise generating machine you are refering to.
I despise the 'If you've done nothing wrong/have nothing to hide then submitting to "X" shouldn't be a big deal'. It is a big deal to me. If I have done nothing wrong/nothing to hide it's none of your business what's in my history. These kind of arguments are designed to make those who value their privacy look like the worst of the worst for nothing more than wanting to keep their private lives private.
I realize that the vast majority of the world's population does not live in the US, but, for those that do, we used to have protections against being asked for every bit of information. It may not have been enumerated in law, but that's what the 9th amendment is for. The US was formed by a bunch of traitors, this is true, but they were also brilliant men who understood the value of privacy. If I've done nothing wrong, it's none of your damn business.
A few years ago I worked for a Las Vegas hotel/casino as an audio/RF tech and after a few months the hotel decided they wanted to fingerprint me and my associates. At one point in time, anyone who worked for a casino had to be fingerprinted, but as of the year before I moved to Las Vegas that requirement had been refined to include only people handling money or chips associated with gaming; something my job desciption did not even begin to include.
Aside from myself, all of my co-workers agreed to have their prints taken (at a cost of $80 out of pocket). After a few days of asking why I needed my fingerprints taken (the answer always being 'because'), and more importantly, what would happen to the prints after the check (no answer) I was given an ultimatum, get the fingerprints done that afternoon or get fired. I chose to be fired and it was the best decision I ever made. Unbelievably it opened up a series of job oportunities that I have been riding on for the past several years. Since that point I have worked in four other casinos and none has ever required fingerprinting as a condition of my employment and all of my jobs have had the exact same desciption.
In any case. If the employer requires something that you don't agree with, you have two options, capitulate or refuse. I stood for what I believed was right, I got fired and I spent a solid two years taking temporary jobs (fortunately in my field) and wondering if I was going to make enough in a given month to cover the mortgage. In the end, word got around that I was a person who stood up for his principals and it has led to better working conditions since (though I have had to take a fair bit of ribbing on occasion about whom and how many people I killed in my past. 8^) )
Freedom is only dead if you let it die. It seems that most people are more interested in comfort and security than freedom. I myself will always choose freedom, even if it means giving up the comforts I have become accustomed to.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct on all counts, but to make a general statement on the parent post: You will fall under the most restrictive TSA inspection requirements when operating under CFR 14 Part 121 (regularly scheduled air lines). When the TSA tried to impose more stringent rules on Part 91 (general) and Part 135 (commuter, air-taxi, sightseeing) operations they got screamed at and backed off for the time being. They tried to implement tighter security on aircraft with a gross weight of greater than 12,500lbs but that has been tabled for now.
So, as a CFR 14 Part 91 operator (and probably as a Part 135) I could (in theory) park my plane at JFK airport at the SheltAir FBO, do some sightseeing and grab a bunch of friends. When we all come back there is no (or little) security and with little more than a wave to the lineman and the ok from ground control I am taxiing on my way. Even if I'm flying a Boeing 737 like John Travolta.
about a year ago when i closed my google account(s). same with facebook, although if their shadow-profiling is any indication of 'how its done' then you can expect google to start silently tracking the same inferential data about you as a person instead..
either may have started as amicable services, but both have rapidly evolved into a flagrant, unapologetic breeches of privacy.
My previous employer required me to have a Google account (manager would publish the schedule on Google Docs). I left the job, closed the account and once closed tried to log back in. Google gave me a message to the effect that the name and password don't match / that there is no account so I go on with my life. Today I see that I need to tell Google to delete my history and decide to try to log in using my old username and password. Surprise! Google lets me log into an account that I definitely closed a year ago. Don't be evil my ass.
I have one of last year's versions of Sony's Reader (PRS-650), it's stamped 'Made in China'. I have no reason to doubt that the others are any different.
As an update to what you wrote:
At this point the FCC makes freely available all test questions and answers. They have also done away with the oral portions of the exams as well as the morse requirements for every license except radiotelegraph operators. This makes the cram method especially prevalent. Some of the companies that you refer to still exist but now they simply publish the questions and answers with some minor bit of explanations; some also publish practice exam software. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class radiotelephone operator licenses have been done away with and are now replaced by the General Radiotelephone Operator License (GROL) which, as I understand it, is the (from a technical knowledge standpoint) equivalent of a 2nd class radiotelephone license. The broadcast endorsement has been done away with and is no longer required for commercial broadcast radio. DJs certainly don't need it though I imagine that getting a job as an engineer with a radio station without a license is probably pretty difficult even if not legally required. Commercial licenses are still required for operation and repair of nautical stations and equipment and for repair (but not operation) of domestic aeronautical stations and equipment.
On the FAA side, they used to publish both question and answer pools like the FCC but came under fire for it a few years back and no longer do this. They do release a few sample questions but the vast majority of the pools are not available so you end up with a situation much like these doctors where people will remember what was on the test and forward the questions and answer options on to prep companies. Some do a really good job of creating a curriculum where the student actually learns the material, others do just like the FCC prep companies and publish books of questions and answers with some bit of explanation. The FAA retains the oral portion so in theory, an applicant who has memorized the written exam could still be caught by an examiner when asked to explain the theory of a given topic. And, obviously, the FAA also retains the practical exam as well. Of course life is not perfect and some students only want to study for (and some instructors are only too happy to teach for) the tests and nothing else.
As background: I took my Extra Class amateur radio license test in 2007 and private pilot tests in 2010. I am currently studying for my GROL and instrument pilot tests.
True, but I think the issue came up in central Florida because the 'space coast' is primarily a final assembly and launch site. As such it saw far more job losses (both at the local contract corps. and KSC itself) than the other NASA locations that have large administrative, research or testing mandates. Not that those tasks aren't performed in Florida, they are simply on a much smaller scale than elsewhere.
Maybe this will come up again in Alabama, but MSFC has a much smaller per capita affected community than Florida and the remaining sites still seem to be fairly busy with basic and applied research, satellite and rover operations, ISS ops, etc.
... Rumble strips violently rock the whole car and make a loud, disturbing noise.
That sound may be disturbing if you are a responsible driver who may for one reason or another have momentarily lapsed in control of your vehicle. Out in Las Vegas the sun destroys painted lines so quickly that they have more or less given up repainting them and now delineate lanes with little round plastic domes. I've seen many times where a drunk driver will use that 'loud, disturbing noise' to navigate. They call it driving by Braille. You and I consider that noise to be disturbing, they consider it to be reassuring. It's one of the reasons that I will absolutely not be out on the roads tonight (New Years Eve).
Most school boards in the U.S. are filled by elected officials. Election to the school board is often considered an entry level position into the field of politics. Many people who seek election to the school board are only using it as a stepping stone to higher elected office. Few seem to actually care about the institution that they have been elected to lead; it's all about how they can parlay that into a more influential position by the next election cycle or two.
The citizens of a given district bear the responsibility for this as most choose not to research whom they are voting for because to most people it's a position that they don't care about, even if they have children in public schools. For most of the electorate it's all about the prestigious presidential and national congressional races. They couldn't care less about anything below the national level and certainly not about what happens in their own backyard. When things do go wrong at home, they expect their congresscritter in Washington to fix it rather than taking a few hours to research and elect the right people locally in the first place.
We find the conclusions reached by Consumer Reports to be not only ridiculous but completely baseless as well. Our company would like to believe that it's service would be given a fair and unbalanced evaluation in the market but that is apparently too much to ask. Below we have chosen to refute a few of the more egregious claims leveled by so-called Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports asserts that AT&T's customer service is below average. This is completely untrue. Not a single member of our executive board had trouble reaching a service representative. All of our executive board member's questions were answered politely and completely. They were even told to have a nice day as they disconnected.
As to the statements that our system coverage is sub-par; they have obviously failed to take note of our previously stated plans to at some undefined point in the future to potentially undertake some form of consideration on the concept of improving coverage and building out our meaninglessly named 4G network. We are truly serious about thinking about these things and we believe that we should be given extra credit for taking the time out of our very busy day to contemplate things of this ilk.
We support our troops, orphans, nuns and puppies.
To the assertion that our customer satisfaction ranks at the bottom of the list. Completely untrue! Our internally generated satisfaction matrices inform us that customer satisfaction has never been higher. Our P.R. Department confirms that they believe our internal numbers to be accurate and will sign sworn statements to this effect. In short, we believe our customers love us.
In conclusion, we feel that this is yet another attempt by our enemies in the FCC, the Obama administration, Sprint and the Society for Creative Anachronism to slander our company's good name and prevent our monopoly from succeeding as planned.
Sincerely,
Your AT&T Overlords
We need government intervention they claim; right up until the next revelation is that Carrier IQ's biggest client is the United States government. Whoopsies!
Precisely.
And, if she writes as poorly as she speaks, I can think of few more horrifying ways to spend a Sunday afternoon than wading through the disjointed ramblings of Ms. Palin.
You VIM kids are lucky! If only I could get FireFox to work more like emacs.
The longer it gets, the more accurate it is! 8^)
Of course, there is an easy way around that scenario:
Terrorist:
Excuse me, miss? Do I have time to use the restroom?
Flight Attendant:
Yes sir, about 10 more minutes before the TSA mandates that all passengers remain seated.
I believe that your latter conclusion of M. Organic Brain Damage's post is the correct interpretation. Certainly a single Goldman Sachs bond trader is not worth 2,000,000 Congolese, however, based on our (the United States) actions, a dispasionate observer could assume that our society has come to the conclusion that he is.
I am well aware that on a nightly basis I oversee the operation of nearly 75 illegal radio stations. Unfortunately, the FCC has not seen fit to provide a way for me or my colleagues to operate legally.
The only entities eligible for licenses for the operation of wireless microphones are news gathering organizations and film producers. This policy leaves out live entertainment which are the vast majority of users. Any time you see a concert, theatrical production, sporting event, or even a political rally, if those microphones weren't provided by a news organization or film crew covering the event they are being illegally operated. Any time McCain or Obama gets on stage with a wireless mic to address the crowd, or a coach calls a play to a quarterback via wireless intercom, those are all illegal uses of wireless microphones. The President doesn't break the law because the Secret Service doesn't trust wireless microphones (or even phantom powered mics for that matter) and so he has two wired Shure SM57 microphones on his lectern. Rest assured, it's not because he can't get a license (though technically he can't).
The FCC turns a blind eye to our usage for the most part because we try very hard to be good neighbors. If any issues arise, we are the ones to move or cease transmission. We do our best to not cause interference to any users because we have no legal standing to operate; and we cooperate with our fellow colleagues so that issues are worked out amongst ourselves.
You are right in that there is a double standard. The difference is that at the end of the day, I and my fellow operators are watching to make sure that we don't cause problems and to proactively keep things that way. The average user of a white-space device cannot be expected to exercise the same due-diligence so the FCC is insuring that the devices do the work for them.
I too would suspect that a device capable of using the interstitial spaces of an active channel would be capable of detecting an RF microphone but I don't know what the FCC wanted Google's device to do. Was it supposed to simply stay off active transmitters or did they want it to flag any and all transmitters in the pass-band?
I've only heard third-hand reports of what happened at the test as the results (to my knowledge) haven't been made public yet. Judging by the article, your comment, and a large amount of wild-ass guessing on my part I would imagine that the FCC wanted them to flag anything and everything in the pass-band but that Google's device saw an active television channel, noted it but didn't analyze it's interstitial spaces, and moved on.
That could be good as that could say that the device would not attempt to use small gaps between transmitters in a crowded RF environment. However, that would seem an odd outcome for a device that (I assume) is designed to take advantage of those same small gaps.
On the other hand, it could be bad as that could mean the device does not perform due diligence in seeking low power transmitters.
Without knowing the FCC's intentions, it's hard to speculate.
On a personal note (apologies as I couldn't help but checking out your call-sign), your name seems familiar and I think we've worked together (or at least met) previously but I can't place where. Did you ever work for PWS or with Stoffo?
-e
I cannot speak for the FCC's motives in devising the test the way they did. Certainly the test is designed around conditions as they are, or more accurately, as they can be and not how they most likely will be in the future.
I would imagine that your characterization of some FCC guy thinking that he's being clever is probably right on the mark. The FCC knowledge tests are full of this "clever" thinking. Both the amateur and commercial radio tests have trick questions and what ifs, as well as lots of out of date questions. There is no reason for me to think that they wouldn't do the same thing in a practical test as well.
IE: in the current commercial GROL exam there are several questions relating to the OMEGA navigation system. As of the end of this month that system will have been officially deactivated for 11 years.
All that said, I still don't believe that the test was rigged as it is representative of possible current conditions. The FCC may have been trying to make a point that the designers of the white-space devices need to think a little more outside of the box as to what might be using apparently free spectrum, or where there might be available space in apparently used spectrum. There might be a wireless microphone there or there might not. The trick of putting low power transmitters inside an operating television channel is one of last resort. At the same time one also never knows when a HAM radio operator might pop up.
However, I would allow that the test is disingenuous in that it is not likely to be representative of the conditions that the white-space devices should encounter when the would be authorized for use. Using that criteria (current / obsolete vs expected future), I understand your contention that the testing was rigged.
-e
It takes only a moment to see that it was a rigged test because the wireless Internet device did NOT interfere with the microphone, because it did successfully detect the local television station that was broadcasting on that frequency and therefore did not try to use it. Analog TV stations are some seriously high power broad spectrum noise. Any frequency-hopping wireless Internet device would be useless attempting to use the same frequency and would obviously move on to another part of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interfering with the TV station and any other device being masked by it. That part will be conveniently left out of the headlines. The fact that the wireless microphone itself may have been useless while attempting to use that frequency, due to interference from the television station, will also be left out.
The test is not rigged. I have been doing RF coordination for entertainment professionally for about a decade now and I can assure that with this test the FCC has highlighted one major strategy that we use in crowded RF environments.
An analog television station is not the high power broadband noise machine you make it out to be. An NTSC analog signal takes up 6MHz of bandwidth in the radio spectrum. That signal is actually made up of three distinct signals that are modulated into one channel; those signals are a video carrier, a chromance sub-carrier (color) and a sound sub-carrier. Those signals take up a few 100kHz of bandwidth and are separated by a few 100kHz.
The standard RF microphone used for stage, television and film production has a peak bandwidth of ~ +/- 56kHz or a grand total of ~112kHz total deviation. With that small usage of bandwidth we can fit three microphones into an operating analog television channel without causing interference to the primary spectrum user.
The FCC test seems to be showing that Google's engineers are unaware of this strategy employed by RF coordinators and that if their device decided to employ the same strategy, it would interfere with the operating microphone within the analog television channel.
Mind you, this becomes moot on 19 February 2009 as we cannot do this trick with a digital ATSC signal. That is the high-power noise generating machine you are refering to.
-e
... do you really want to be on the NSA and FSI's [sic] shit list?
Absolutely. I have been very diligent in my efforts for many years.
They give you 3 more keys in easy reach of your thumbs.
I don't have thumbs you insensitive clod!
Brrrrraaaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnnnsssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8^)
I despise the 'If you've done nothing wrong/have nothing to hide then submitting to "X" shouldn't be a big deal'. It is a big deal to me. If I have done nothing wrong/nothing to hide it's none of your business what's in my history. These kind of arguments are designed to make those who value their privacy look like the worst of the worst for nothing more than wanting to keep their private lives private.
I realize that the vast majority of the world's population does not live in the US, but, for those that do, we used to have protections against being asked for every bit of information. It may not have been enumerated in law, but that's what the 9th amendment is for. The US was formed by a bunch of traitors, this is true, but they were also brilliant men who understood the value of privacy. If I've done nothing wrong, it's none of your damn business.
-E
I think I'd have a much harder time hiring a guy whose email address starts with 'sexwithanimals' than someone with bad credit.
Just a thought.
-E
I agree.
A few years ago I worked for a Las Vegas hotel/casino as an audio/RF tech and after a few months the hotel decided they wanted to fingerprint me and my associates. At one point in time, anyone who worked for a casino had to be fingerprinted, but as of the year before I moved to Las Vegas that requirement had been refined to include only people handling money or chips associated with gaming; something my job desciption did not even begin to include.
Aside from myself, all of my co-workers agreed to have their prints taken (at a cost of $80 out of pocket). After a few days of asking why I needed my fingerprints taken (the answer always being 'because'), and more importantly, what would happen to the prints after the check (no answer) I was given an ultimatum, get the fingerprints done that afternoon or get fired. I chose to be fired and it was the best decision I ever made. Unbelievably it opened up a series of job oportunities that I have been riding on for the past several years. Since that point I have worked in four other casinos and none has ever required fingerprinting as a condition of my employment and all of my jobs have had the exact same desciption.
In any case. If the employer requires something that you don't agree with, you have two options, capitulate or refuse. I stood for what I believed was right, I got fired and I spent a solid two years taking temporary jobs (fortunately in my field) and wondering if I was going to make enough in a given month to cover the mortgage. In the end, word got around that I was a person who stood up for his principals and it has led to better working conditions since (though I have had to take a fair bit of ribbing on occasion about whom and how many people I killed in my past. 8^) )
Freedom is only dead if you let it die. It seems that most people are more interested in comfort and security than freedom. I myself will always choose freedom, even if it means giving up the comforts I have become accustomed to.
Cheers,
E
You've forgotten about pouring hot grits and moon dust on Natalie Portman! 8^)