No, the US put Wikileaks on a watchlist and Moneybookers decided to stop doing business with them.
TFA: "However, following recent publicity and the subsequently addition of the WikiLeaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watchlists in the USA, we [Moneybookers] have terminated the business relationship."
It akin to the following: If Fred threatens to beat Bob to a pulp if Bob ever makes spaghetti on a Tuesday...then someone comes along and says: "Bob of his own free will, chooses not to make spaghetti on Tuesdays."
Bullshit, RTFA. Wikileaks was put on a blacklist, so Moneybookers decided to stop doing business with them. The US never contacted Moneybookers and did not put them on a watchlist. They are free to do business with anyone they want, but chose not to do business with a blacklisted Wikileaks. It's akin to Bob getting detention and Fred deciding not to hang out with him anymore.
TFA: "We have never had any request, inquiry or correspondence from any authority regarding this former customer."
They could be lying, but then we're just playing conspiracy games and anything could be correct.
The main hurdle is CableLabs and the burdens they place on hardware and OS vendors.
How's that? CableLabs is responsible for the almost non-existence of CableCard (CC) ready devices? It may be a slow process (I don't know) but I doubt that is what's holding up adoption. The ex-CEO of CableLab (for 21 years, since it was started) is my professor, so I'll ask him about this. He described CC as a billion dollar waste of money for the cable industry on Tuesday when we talked about this (CC in general, not this FCC order). Think of the cost of installing a PCMCIA chassis and card in every cable box versus a simple chip on the circuit board, for starters.
That's an interesting concept. I had never thought of a DVR/Multicast combo. It would require an always on device and some notion of what you wanted to record. Basically taking an Apple/GoogleTV, adding a program guide and setting it to record specific multicast addresses at certain times. Add DRM and monthly charge and keep the commercials and the networks may just by off on it.
The problem is timeshifting. Thousands of people are watching Hulu, but how many are watching the same content and started it at around the same time? Without any advanced caching, multicast would only help those streams that happen to line up.
I agree with your point, though. Where is the Internet-wide multicast?
Kind of an odd scenario where the last mile is ready for multicast naturally because of the shared medium (cable & wireless) but the core is not. I know the solution is not trivial, too.
The geolocation you're talking about is using IP addresses and, as you've seen, is not reliable.
Whitespace devices will use GPS or a manual configuration (for fixed devices) to set their location. So they'll reliably know where they are located.
So how can this work without the end-user "volunteering" his coordinates and registering his intent to use that bandwidth at that location?
I don't know that the exact mechanisms of the database lookups have been sorted out yet. The devices could very well report a GPS coordinate to a database and receive back a list of available channels. That'd present the privacy concerns the OP noted (although the FCC/government is still not running the database). The lookup could be limited to the fixed tower location, though, which then handles channel assignment for any client devices under it. With that scenario, there'd be no way (within the regulations) to track individual clients because they are not doing lookups in the database.
Devices could also download portions of the database for a specific state or region and then perform the analysis to determine what channels are open. So you'd only have a state or maybe city based granularity to track client locations. Less of a privacy risk there.
Yes, because it's trivial to just hang fiber on poles. No need to worry about the additional weight, wind load, ice load, etc. or neighborhoods that don't have poles are are served underground.
Where's your backup to prove that these 6 megahertz channels can carry more than 40 Mbit/s datarate?
I never made any such claim. I said that there's no restriction (afaict) on modulation schemes so 6MHz doesn't necessarily mean 20Mbps. They could stick with 8VSB or move to 16VSB, OFDM, QAM, who knows. The devices are barely even out there yet and the requirements are not the same as broadcast television. I don't know the modulation scheme used by the Microsoft trials up in Washington, but I'm sure it could be found via search.
I've researched this (unlike you apparently) and in rural communities the DSLAM is hung directly off a pole, with a fiber optic feeding it.
Are you really too fucking ignorant to read my entire post? I said "If you installed a remote DSLAM in a neighborhood, I think you'd have to backhaul it with some new infrastructure to the central office." Hang it on poles, dig ditches, whatever. You're still laying fiber to within 15 miles of every home.
And for your claim that DSL is not the answer, you once again demonstrate your ignorance. The 2nd fastest nation in the world is Japan, and 95% of their internet is based upon DSL. If it can work for them, it can work for us too.
Yes, because there's no difference between Japan and the US.
Where are you getting 15 miles from? You answered the second part, now provide a link or something for the claim so I can read it.
It failed because it was for broadcast television. High power, long ranges, etc. The devices using whitespaces will not all be the same nor try to replicate the broadcast television coverage.
No shit there's practical limits. Get your head out of your TV.
Where are you getting 15 miles from, too? What is it, 256Kbps at that distance?
DSLAMs are installed in the central offices, not the neighborhoods. If you installed a remote DSLAM in a neighborhood, I think you'd have to backhaul it with some new infrastructure to the central office. That's the fiber I was talking about - in order to put a DSLAM within 15 miles (?) of every house.
I'm sure more could be done with DSL, but it's not the solution to nationwide access even though everyone has copper to their homes.
No part of the USF goes towards broadband Internet access. USF is for telecommunications services only, which doesn't include broadband.
I think the National Broadband Plan suggests changing the USF to support broadband expansion, though. I know there have been several bills towards that goal, but they haven't gone anywhere.
Now that you've amazed everyone with your math skills, go back and read my last sentence.
You also assume that 6MHz == 20 Mbps because that's what digital television uses. As far as I can tell, there are no restrictions on modulation schemes for these devices. I doubt they'll stick to 8VSB.
That's ONE possible solution for devices on these frequencies and will likely only be used in rural areas. So yes, I'm sure they will enjoy sharing Internet service with their community because it's better than the dial-up or satellite service they were getting.
Any company that tried to deploy this in a highly populated area covering 20 miles is asking to be ruined.
Geolocation, followed by a lookup in a central server presumably administered by the FCC
Next time you want to presume something, keep your mouth shut and do some research instead. The databases (multiple) will be run in individual companies that determine what kind of services they want to provide and what prices to charge (if any). Yes, the FCC has some oversight in determining who runs 'em, etc. but that's it.
If that still bothers you, you're just paranoid and the government is already watching you, anyhow.
Devices which continuously geolocate themselves and report their location to a central government authority, ostensibly to "prevent interference" with technology that is fucking obsolete already? That sounds more like the KGB than the Tea Party.
The FCC will not run the databases. Multiple independent companies will. You can apply to be a database administrator and choose what services to offer, what to charge, etc. Free market.
He said get rid of broadcast TV, not Free TV. Free television _could_ be provided over cable, DSL or satellite, although it's not right now, obviously.
and with a fiber-to-DSLAM-to-phoneline connection, that increases to hundreds of miles
And who's going to pay to lay all of the fiber to all of the DSLAMs you're suggesting get installed? Hell, if you're going to do that, just lay fiber the rest of the way, the last 15 miles, and provide fiber-to-the-home. It must be free to do so and not require any digging or right of way at all, since you propose it can be done so easily.
> Yeah but at some point the packet has to "split" in order to be delivered at each home.
No, it doesn't. A true multicast/broadcast IP system would have the tower transmitting a single packet and every device under the tower would receive it. If the viewer is watching Super Bowl HD, then the packet is used to show the video, otherwise it is discarded. One packet for every phone/receiver under the tower, just like broadcast television. This just doesn't exist right now, as far as I know.
How much range is 40 mW? What you're basically saying is my 1000-or-so neighbors would have to share (in this example) channels 43 and 48. That's abou4 40 Megabit divided by 1000 == not very fast.
No, that's what you're basically saying. What I'm saying is that in reading the report, the FCC concludes that a 40mW power output is low enough to protect edge-of-contour reception at a rooftop antenna 16 meters away. Somewhere else, some comments submitted to the FCC mention a 100 meter range. Do you have 1000 neighbors within 100 meters? If so, don't buy one of these devices and make fun of the company that tries to deploy it in your area.
Unless it changes in the new order, devices acting as clients will not have to perform geolocation lookups. The central tower does all of the channel lookups and assignments for everything under it, essentially.
Fixed stations can't use adjacent channels but personal devices can.
And if a station is only viewable 10 miles away, that gives a five mile range (possibly) where a community system could be set up on these frequencies. Not all uses of this system are going to be 50 mile spheres (although I question the 50 mile range at only 4W EIRP).
In the end, maybe you are 100% correct. Your area will not be able to use these devices. At least the other 80% of the country can make use of them, though.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the US put Wikileaks on a watchlist and Moneybookers decided to stop doing business with them.
-John
Bullshit, RTFA. Wikileaks was put on a blacklist, so Moneybookers decided to stop doing business with them. The US never contacted Moneybookers and did not put them on a watchlist. They are free to do business with anyone they want, but chose not to do business with a blacklisted Wikileaks. It's akin to Bob getting detention and Fred deciding not to hang out with him anymore.
They could be lying, but then we're just playing conspiracy games and anything could be correct.
-John
How's that? CableLabs is responsible for the almost non-existence of CableCard (CC) ready devices? It may be a slow process (I don't know) but I doubt that is what's holding up adoption. The ex-CEO of CableLab (for 21 years, since it was started) is my professor, so I'll ask him about this. He described CC as a billion dollar waste of money for the cable industry on Tuesday when we talked about this (CC in general, not this FCC order). Think of the cost of installing a PCMCIA chassis and card in every cable box versus a simple chip on the circuit board, for starters.
-John
That's an interesting concept. I had never thought of a DVR/Multicast combo. It would require an always on device and some notion of what you wanted to record. Basically taking an Apple/GoogleTV, adding a program guide and setting it to record specific multicast addresses at certain times. Add DRM and monthly charge and keep the commercials and the networks may just by off on it.
The problem is timeshifting. Thousands of people are watching Hulu, but how many are watching the same content and started it at around the same time? Without any advanced caching, multicast would only help those streams that happen to line up.
I agree with your point, though. Where is the Internet-wide multicast?
Kind of an odd scenario where the last mile is ready for multicast naturally because of the shared medium (cable & wireless) but the core is not. I know the solution is not trivial, too.
John
Still got 11/12/13 and 12/13/14 to look forward to.
The geolocation you're talking about is using IP addresses and, as you've seen, is not reliable.
Whitespace devices will use GPS or a manual configuration (for fixed devices) to set their location. So they'll reliably know where they are located.
I don't know that the exact mechanisms of the database lookups have been sorted out yet. The devices could very well report a GPS coordinate to a database and receive back a list of available channels. That'd present the privacy concerns the OP noted (although the FCC/government is still not running the database). The lookup could be limited to the fixed tower location, though, which then handles channel assignment for any client devices under it. With that scenario, there'd be no way (within the regulations) to track individual clients because they are not doing lookups in the database.
Devices could also download portions of the database for a specific state or region and then perform the analysis to determine what channels are open. So you'd only have a state or maybe city based granularity to track client locations. Less of a privacy risk there.
John
Yes, because it's trivial to just hang fiber on poles. No need to worry about the additional weight, wind load, ice load, etc. or neighborhoods that don't have poles are are served underground.
I never made any such claim. I said that there's no restriction (afaict) on modulation schemes so 6MHz doesn't necessarily mean 20Mbps. They could stick with 8VSB or move to 16VSB, OFDM, QAM, who knows. The devices are barely even out there yet and the requirements are not the same as broadcast television. I don't know the modulation scheme used by the Microsoft trials up in Washington, but I'm sure it could be found via search.
-John
Are you really too fucking ignorant to read my entire post? I said "If you installed a remote DSLAM in a neighborhood, I think you'd have to backhaul it with some new infrastructure to the central office." Hang it on poles, dig ditches, whatever. You're still laying fiber to within 15 miles of every home.
Yes, because there's no difference between Japan and the US.
Where are you getting 15 miles from? You answered the second part, now provide a link or something for the claim so I can read it.
It failed because it was for broadcast television. High power, long ranges, etc. The devices using whitespaces will not all be the same nor try to replicate the broadcast television coverage.
No shit there's practical limits. Get your head out of your TV.
Where are you getting 15 miles from, too? What is it, 256Kbps at that distance?
DSLAMs are installed in the central offices, not the neighborhoods. If you installed a remote DSLAM in a neighborhood, I think you'd have to backhaul it with some new infrastructure to the central office. That's the fiber I was talking about - in order to put a DSLAM within 15 miles (?) of every house.
I'm sure more could be done with DSL, but it's not the solution to nationwide access even though everyone has copper to their homes.
-John
No part of the USF goes towards broadband Internet access. USF is for telecommunications services only, which doesn't include broadband.
I think the National Broadband Plan suggests changing the USF to support broadband expansion, though. I know there have been several bills towards that goal, but they haven't gone anywhere.
-John
Well, it's multicast in IP because broadcast has another definition (all hosts on a subnet), but yeah, it works in a similar way.
And it does exist, just not in an Internet-wide fashion.
Now that you've amazed everyone with your math skills, go back and read my last sentence.
You also assume that 6MHz == 20 Mbps because that's what digital television uses. As far as I can tell, there are no restrictions on modulation schemes for these devices. I doubt they'll stick to 8VSB.
-John
That's ONE possible solution for devices on these frequencies and will likely only be used in rural areas. So yes, I'm sure they will enjoy sharing Internet service with their community because it's better than the dial-up or satellite service they were getting.
Any company that tried to deploy this in a highly populated area covering 20 miles is asking to be ruined.
-John
Next time you want to presume something, keep your mouth shut and do some research instead. The databases (multiple) will be run in individual companies that determine what kind of services they want to provide and what prices to charge (if any). Yes, the FCC has some oversight in determining who runs 'em, etc. but that's it.
If that still bothers you, you're just paranoid and the government is already watching you, anyhow.
The FCC will not run the databases. Multiple independent companies will. You can apply to be a database administrator and choose what services to offer, what to charge, etc. Free market.
He said get rid of broadcast TV, not Free TV. Free television _could_ be provided over cable, DSL or satellite, although it's not right now, obviously.
-John
And who's going to pay to lay all of the fiber to all of the DSLAMs you're suggesting get installed? Hell, if you're going to do that, just lay fiber the rest of the way, the last 15 miles, and provide fiber-to-the-home. It must be free to do so and not require any digging or right of way at all, since you propose it can be done so easily.
> Yeah but at some point the packet has to "split" in order to be delivered at each home.
No, it doesn't. A true multicast/broadcast IP system would have the tower transmitting a single packet and every device under the tower would receive it. If the viewer is watching Super Bowl HD, then the packet is used to show the video, otherwise it is discarded. One packet for every phone/receiver under the tower, just like broadcast television. This just doesn't exist right now, as far as I know.
-John
No, that's what you're basically saying. What I'm saying is that in reading the report, the FCC concludes that a 40mW power output is low enough to protect edge-of-contour reception at a rooftop antenna 16 meters away. Somewhere else, some comments submitted to the FCC mention a 100 meter range. Do you have 1000 neighbors within 100 meters? If so, don't buy one of these devices and make fun of the company that tries to deploy it in your area.
Unless it changes in the new order, devices acting as clients will not have to perform geolocation lookups. The central tower does all of the channel lookups and assignments for everything under it, essentially.
-John
Fixed stations can't use adjacent channels but personal devices can.
And if a station is only viewable 10 miles away, that gives a five mile range (possibly) where a community system could be set up on these frequencies. Not all uses of this system are going to be 50 mile spheres (although I question the 50 mile range at only 4W EIRP).
In the end, maybe you are 100% correct. Your area will not be able to use these devices. At least the other 80% of the country can make use of them, though.
-John
IIRC, adjacent channels can not be used by fixed stations at 4W EIRP. They can be used by personal devices at 40mW, though.
People are writing this off before the industry even determines how it will be used. WISP is only one solution that may use these frequencies.
John