>> 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.
>> 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.
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.
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?
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.
This tool doesn't have to replace everything else. An adjustable wrench doesn't replace regular wrench sets in a mechanic's toolbox. Like any other tool, it can be abused by those that don't know how to use it though.
There's no privacy issue here. The system in an internal collaboration tool. It shouldn't replace face time or evaluations, but like any other tool, it can be abused by employers and employees.
By analyzing the data, investigating what's reported and writing an article on it. You know, be journalists. Or release it only to journalists who will do that.
On top of that, M2Z could still win the auction and go ahead with their plan. It's likely that the spectrum will auction for a lot more money now, though, so M2Z will be outbid. That's why M2Z wanted the strict service rules that aligned exactly with their business model - they'd likely be the only (or at least the highest) bidder.
Similar argument used to support the FCC being involved with indecency on broadcast TV. It's always there in the air and a child could tune into broadcast TV at any time, so there has to be indecency regulation.
And you think the mobile providers would care? You already bought the phone with the data, if some users want to offload traffic to a free service, let 'em!
I highly doubt this would deter many people from getting a data plan.
1) Kind of. More like M2Z was asking the FCC to attach service rules to the spectrum auction requiring the winner to provide free Internet. This kind of requirement (including build-out, power, etc. requirements) are common, although providing free Internet is a new one as far as I know. M2Z could have lost the auction, although they were clearly trying to align the rules with their own intentions/business plan.
2) I don't know of any bandwidth issues, other than the 1MB max speed mentioned. Not sure if the spectrum is driving that or the tech that'll be used. Adjacent spectrum users are always going to cry about interference if the incoming technology doesn't meld with their business plans. All they have to do is cry interference and the entire process grinds to a halt.
He should have kept his rant to PowerPoint instead of basically saying he was a part of a worthless organization. You should expect to get fired in any industry when you say that to your boss or the media.
Your argument hinges on the idea that society should have to seek to avoid indecent material, that nudity, sex, profanity, and violence should be the default, and that parents should have to take proactive measures to avoid those things in the media.
I don't see where I've said that. I think it's becoming more prevalent, but not the default. 85% of the people in the States already have to do this (proactive measures), versus the 15% who receive over the air broadcasts.
once you have the ability to decode that signal, you have the legal obligation to prevent minors from watching that material
How is this any different from digital TV broadcast over the air? You choose to have a digital TV decoder in your house. Why is it the governments responsibility to control what's decoded on your reciever yet my responsibility on my cable receiver? My 7-year old working a cable TV remote is different from your 6-year old working a remote for a TV receiving OTA broadcasts?
You make a good argument overall, though, so thank you for that. This is a hard area to decide what to regulate or not.
So you stopped paying your bill because of one show coming on while you were watching TV? I mean, it's better than whining to the government to fix things, but sounds kind of odd. Why not just change the channel? Sounds like you didn't have a need for television in the first place and this just kinda sealed the deal.
Kudos for taking things into your own hands instead of expecting someone else to solve your problem, though.:)
>> But children should not be exposed to excessive >> violence, sex, or profanity on the PUBLIC airwaves.
Do the children see it floating through the air on the way to the television receivers?
How come it's my responsibility to ensure my kids don't tune to channel 651 when watching cable but it's the government's responsibility to control what's broadcast on channel 4?
I'm for indecency standards, in general. I think self-regulation by the stations and networks over all mediums would work best. I don't understand the separation and different treatment of "broadcast" television (I know the history of why it's treated this way, though).
>> Telling my kids we're not going to watch an entire channel of their favorite shows is not an option.
And obviously the best option is to get the government involved? Speaking of ridiculous comments.
>> We're talking about the FCC here. Isn't this their frakin job?
No, not entirely. The FCC has no jurisdiction to regulate violence or "extremely scary" material for 2 year-olds. They can regulate indecency over broadcast television. If you're watching Cartoon Network or Noggin, etc. then the FCC likely has no jurisdiction over those channels as they are not broadcast. (Not 100% sure those aren't broadcast stations somewhere, though, so those specific channels may not be good examples).
What if my 3 year old is scared by SpongeBob and Patrick's fighting or those scary zapping jellyfish? Would you support the FCC regulating SpongeBob because my kid is scared? Now extrapolate that over thousands of kids and hundreds of programs. You really think this is the FCCs responsibility instead of the parents?
>> But if I put on a kid's TV show, and there's nudity or >> violence on the commercials between the show, how I am >> supposed to block that?
Do you honestly expect that to happen? Even if it did, you have a talk with your child on why that's against your values and then YOU NEVER WATCH THE CHANNEL AGAIN. You really think Noggin or PBS is going to take that risk when they stand to lose all of their viewers?
It's reasonable to expect some level of self-regulation by the stations and networks. I don't see why a government agency has to get involved.
>> In the same way, dark matter and dark energy are FACTS. >> We know that without them, theory does not match >> observations. So we name that different dark matter >> and dark energy.
Umm... no. Dark _whatever_ is the best conjecture science can come up with to explain WHY theory does not match observations. They are in no way FACTS, especially since neither can be directly detected.
Slashdot Mirror
>> it's for them to use the space BETWEEN 44 and 45
No... whitespace devices are only authorized on unused TV channels.
>> 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
>> 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
You forgot the "and only 15% of the people making any use of what you're sending out" part.
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
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?
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.
No different from "accidently" doing a reply-all with the same message.
This will just move the puppets to those that can exploit a social networking environment.
It's really irrelevant. The company is monitoring use of an internal collaboration tool, so there are no privacy concerns.
John
This tool doesn't have to replace everything else. An adjustable wrench doesn't replace regular wrench sets in a mechanic's toolbox. Like any other tool, it can be abused by those that don't know how to use it though.
John
There's no privacy issue here. The system in an internal collaboration tool. It shouldn't replace face time or evaluations, but like any other tool, it can be abused by employers and employees.
John
>> How would you prefer they go about it?
By analyzing the data, investigating what's reported and writing an article on it. You know, be journalists. Or release it only to journalists who will do that.
Expose corruption, not raw data.
-John
>> Don't we have the V-chip? The FCC's role has been superseded
>> by technology, as far as I'm concerned.
Off-topic, but I totally agree.
On top of that, M2Z could still win the auction and go ahead with their plan. It's likely that the spectrum will auction for a lot more money now, though, so M2Z will be outbid. That's why M2Z wanted the strict service rules that aligned exactly with their business model - they'd likely be the only (or at least the highest) bidder.
Similar argument used to support the FCC being involved with indecency on broadcast TV. It's always there in the air and a child could tune into broadcast TV at any time, so there has to be indecency regulation.
And you think the mobile providers would care? You already bought the phone with the data, if some users want to offload traffic to a free service, let 'em!
I highly doubt this would deter many people from getting a data plan.
1) Kind of. More like M2Z was asking the FCC to attach service rules to the spectrum auction requiring the winner to provide free Internet. This kind of requirement (including build-out, power, etc. requirements) are common, although providing free Internet is a new one as far as I know. M2Z could have lost the auction, although they were clearly trying to align the rules with their own intentions/business plan.
2) I don't know of any bandwidth issues, other than the 1MB max speed mentioned. Not sure if the spectrum is driving that or the tech that'll be used. Adjacent spectrum users are always going to cry about interference if the incoming technology doesn't meld with their business plans. All they have to do is cry interference and the entire process grinds to a halt.
He should have kept his rant to PowerPoint instead of basically saying he was a part of a worthless organization. You should expect to get fired in any industry when you say that to your boss or the media.
-John
I don't see where I've said that. I think it's becoming more prevalent, but not the default. 85% of the people in the States already have to do this (proactive measures), versus the 15% who receive over the air broadcasts.
How is this any different from digital TV broadcast over the air? You choose to have a digital TV decoder in your house. Why is it the governments responsibility to control what's decoded on your reciever yet my responsibility on my cable receiver? My 7-year old working a cable TV remote is different from your 6-year old working a remote for a TV receiving OTA broadcasts?
You make a good argument overall, though, so thank you for that. This is a hard area to decide what to regulate or not.
-John
So you stopped paying your bill because of one show coming on while you were watching TV? I mean, it's better than whining to the government to fix things, but sounds kind of odd. Why not just change the channel? Sounds like you didn't have a need for television in the first place and this just kinda sealed the deal.
Kudos for taking things into your own hands instead of expecting someone else to solve your problem, though. :)
-John
>> But children should not be exposed to excessive
>> violence, sex, or profanity on the PUBLIC airwaves.
Do the children see it floating through the air on the way to the television receivers?
How come it's my responsibility to ensure my kids don't tune to channel 651 when watching cable but it's the government's responsibility to control what's broadcast on channel 4?
I'm for indecency standards, in general. I think self-regulation by the stations and networks over all mediums would work best. I don't understand the separation and different treatment of "broadcast" television (I know the history of why it's treated this way, though).
-John
>> Telling my kids we're not going to watch an entire channel of their favorite shows is not an option.
And obviously the best option is to get the government involved? Speaking of ridiculous comments.
>> We're talking about the FCC here. Isn't this their frakin job?
No, not entirely. The FCC has no jurisdiction to regulate violence or "extremely scary" material for 2 year-olds. They can regulate indecency over broadcast television. If you're watching Cartoon Network or Noggin, etc. then the FCC likely has no jurisdiction over those channels as they are not broadcast. (Not 100% sure those aren't broadcast stations somewhere, though, so those specific channels may not be good examples).
What if my 3 year old is scared by SpongeBob and Patrick's fighting or those scary zapping jellyfish? Would you support the FCC regulating SpongeBob because my kid is scared? Now extrapolate that over thousands of kids and hundreds of programs. You really think this is the FCCs responsibility instead of the parents?
-John
>> But if I put on a kid's TV show, and there's nudity or
>> violence on the commercials between the show, how I am
>> supposed to block that?
Do you honestly expect that to happen? Even if it did, you have a talk with your child on why that's against your values and then YOU NEVER WATCH THE CHANNEL AGAIN. You really think Noggin or PBS is going to take that risk when they stand to lose all of their viewers?
It's reasonable to expect some level of self-regulation by the stations and networks. I don't see why a government agency has to get involved.
-John
>> In the same way, dark matter and dark energy are FACTS.
>> We know that without them, theory does not match
>> observations. So we name that different dark matter
>> and dark energy.
Umm... no. Dark _whatever_ is the best conjecture science can come up with to explain WHY theory does not match observations. They are in no way FACTS, especially since neither can be directly detected.
-John