Spread spectrum isn't a magic bullet. SS users wind up raising the noise floor around the frequencies they use. Low power 900 MHz SS has all but ruined the band in some places.
I wouldn't have to map ports for each of the fridges, I would just have to open up incoming connections to the fridge service. As for DNS, that could be handled automatically with either DHCPv6 or wide area Bonjour.
I mean a *good* reason, not just the usual downloading pr0n and reading/. style drivel that is laughably spoken about as some vital function by techno evangelists.
That works for the fridge in the kitchen, but what about the freezer in the garage, and the little bar fridge in the TV room? Now I have to manage port mapping and port numbers, where as in an IPv6 universe, I wouldn't have to do any of that.
And tell me again why my fridge will be on a public IP, rather than the 192.168.1.xxx address my Best Buy $49.99 Linksys router will give it?
So that you can ask it from your cell phone at the grocery store whether or not you need to buy milk.
Do you need that? No, of course not. But you dont need a lot of stuff the Internet can deliver, so that's hardly the point.
NAT provides an illusion of security while getting utterly in the way of the exact kind of end-to-end connectivity the Internet was designed to provide.
Or why a college or university needs to put every last workstation, printer, AP, and toaster on a public IP address?
So that the students can get to them from off-campus housing. So that students can work together on projects. Or print out their term papers and pick them up on their way to class.
NAT exists because NAT works.
That's true as far as it goes. It works because it provides more connectivity than the alternative (private networks with no connectivity) in the situations where it is used (where a network only winds up with a single address). It is not a security solution, much as some people would like to believe that it is. If you want network security, you need a firewall, not a NAT. The Linksys boxen that you so adore actually have both in them.
1. Most broadcasters ask for as much power as they can without interfering with the nearest co-channel transmitter. They don't reduce power like you are suggesting.
2. You're still wrong about NTSC and ATSC power levels being significantly different. Do you plan on admitting that any time soon?
Did you miss the part where I talked about events that can be calendared years in advance? Leap hours can't be so easily predicted. Remember the gnashing of teeth the last time they changed the DST rules, for example?
KBCW-TV transmits with 5 MW of ERP on their NTSC transmitter at present. That's PEAK power, so the average power BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION is less than a THIRD of that. Let's say for now that it's 1/3rd, or 1.6 MW of ERP.
Their construction permit for their post transition operation is for 1 MW of ERP. That's not 1/20th the power level. It is a slight reduction in power (once you decide to compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges), mainly because NTSC transmission, since (the video portion) is AM needs to be much higher above the noise floor for the receivers to receive a noise-free picture. Once you get a DTV receiver above the cliff, there's no benefit to using more power, and the benefit to using less power is not so much to the broadcaster's power bill, but to the net reduction in interference and to the narrowing of proximity margins between adjacent co-channel and adjacent channel transmitters.
In short, ATSC power levels simply are not vastly reduced from NTSC power levels. Suggestions otherwise are simply incorrect.
1. Ordinary people who don't take note of such things can have their clocks be off by a second (or even a few) and still get along in their ordinary lives. That would not be the case if the government announced that there was going to be a leap hour inserted this year and they missed it.
2. Any semi-periodic event that must be noted and accommodated by the general public that cannot be calendared years in advance is virtually guaranteed to be a snarling mess.
Wrong. The last time I checked (around June I think) they had received FCC permits to do a Digital Flash Cut on 4 of their translators, including the one here.
Uh huh. And when is the earliest date they're allowed to perform that flash cut? Could it be 2/17/09, perhaps?
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
[...]
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
Electricity is definitely a significant part of a broadcaster's budget especially when studio and other ancillary equipment is figured in.
Well, sure, but that has relatively little to do with the ERP of the transmitter, as you tried to say in the GP.
2. You're assuming that the transmitter is on 24/7/365. True for a lot of broadcasters, but some turn theirs off in the wee hours. In any event, I'll accept that it represents 3 employees instead of 1. I don't know for sure, but I would still suspect that the cost of the electricity is dwarfed by the rent for the patch of mountain top the transmitter sits on.
Power bills for megawatt TV stations are actually a significant part of their budget.
Um, no.
First, power levels are quoted in ERP - Effective Radiated Power. ERP is a product of antenna gain and transmitter power. Even stations with an omnidirectional antenna pattern typically have at the very least 8-10 dB of gain. Why? Because there's no point sending any power upwards from an antenna that is typically at a higher altitude than the viewers it serves.
1000 kW of ERP requires only about 100 kW of PEP if you have a 10 dB gain antenna. Assuming that your transmitter is 50% efficient, that means you're going to need 200 kW of electricity. Assuming an electric rate of 10 cents per kWh, 200 kWh per hour is $20/hr. In other words, the transmitter probably costs them as much as a single employee.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. Rocketry is not unlike cars in this respect. There are three choices: price, performance and reliability. You can pick at most 2.
FAIL!
There will be no full power analog TV broadcasters, but the transition date of 2/17 does not apply to -LP, -CA and translators.
Spread spectrum isn't a magic bullet. SS users wind up raising the noise floor around the frequencies they use. Low power 900 MHz SS has all but ruined the band in some places.
I wouldn't have to map ports for each of the fridges, I would just have to open up incoming connections to the fridge service. As for DNS, that could be handled automatically with either DHCPv6 or wide area Bonjour.
I still win.
Why have the Internet in your house at all?
I mean a *good* reason, not just the usual downloading pr0n and reading /. style drivel that is laughably spoken about as some vital function by techno evangelists.
That works for the fridge in the kitchen, but what about the freezer in the garage, and the little bar fridge in the TV room? Now I have to manage port mapping and port numbers, where as in an IPv6 universe, I wouldn't have to do any of that.
And tell me again why my fridge will be on a public IP, rather than the 192.168.1.xxx address my Best Buy $49.99 Linksys router will give it?
So that you can ask it from your cell phone at the grocery store whether or not you need to buy milk.
Do you need that? No, of course not. But you dont need a lot of stuff the Internet can deliver, so that's hardly the point.
NAT provides an illusion of security while getting utterly in the way of the exact kind of end-to-end connectivity the Internet was designed to provide.
Or why a college or university needs to put every last workstation, printer, AP, and toaster on a public IP address?
So that the students can get to them from off-campus housing. So that students can work together on projects. Or print out their term papers and pick them up on their way to class.
NAT exists because NAT works.
That's true as far as it goes. It works because it provides more connectivity than the alternative (private networks with no connectivity) in the situations where it is used (where a network only winds up with a single address). It is not a security solution, much as some people would like to believe that it is. If you want network security, you need a firewall, not a NAT. The Linksys boxen that you so adore actually have both in them.
Quick! I need a baby in a month! Find me 9 women!
Mis-used the apostrophe's what?
That's probably true whether the universe ends or not.
A wormhole... to hell!
To hell or to Mars?
Wouldn't they rather steal your perfectly good multi-thousand dollar car and sell it for $2000 to feed their addictions?
1. Most broadcasters ask for as much power as they can without interfering with the nearest co-channel transmitter. They don't reduce power like you are suggesting.
2. You're still wrong about NTSC and ATSC power levels being significantly different. Do you plan on admitting that any time soon?
Did you miss the part where I talked about events that can be calendared years in advance? Leap hours can't be so easily predicted. Remember the gnashing of teeth the last time they changed the DST rules, for example?
No, it isn't. Let's look at a typical example:
KBCW-TV transmits with 5 MW of ERP on their NTSC transmitter at present. That's PEAK power, so the average power BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION is less than a THIRD of that. Let's say for now that it's 1/3rd, or 1.6 MW of ERP.
Their construction permit for their post transition operation is for 1 MW of ERP. That's not 1/20th the power level. It is a slight reduction in power (once you decide to compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges), mainly because NTSC transmission, since (the video portion) is AM needs to be much higher above the noise floor for the receivers to receive a noise-free picture. Once you get a DTV receiver above the cliff, there's no benefit to using more power, and the benefit to using less power is not so much to the broadcaster's power bill, but to the net reduction in interference and to the narrowing of proximity margins between adjacent co-channel and adjacent channel transmitters.
In short, ATSC power levels simply are not vastly reduced from NTSC power levels. Suggestions otherwise are simply incorrect.
Because maybe he's a bus driver and flex time wouldn't work very well.
Think of how many lives daylight savings saves regarding traffic
Um, if you extend DST longer, then you're going to lose all those lives you save by having the morning commute occur in darkness.
They tried this during WWII. It was called "War Time," and yes, the accident rate went up in the mornings during the winter.
The trouble with that is twofold:
1. Ordinary people who don't take note of such things can have their clocks be off by a second (or even a few) and still get along in their ordinary lives. That would not be the case if the government announced that there was going to be a leap hour inserted this year and they missed it.
2. Any semi-periodic event that must be noted and accommodated by the general public that cannot be calendared years in advance is virtually guaranteed to be a snarling mess.
Wrong. The last time I checked (around June I think) they had received FCC permits to do a Digital Flash Cut on 4 of their translators, including the one here.
Uh huh. And when is the earliest date they're allowed to perform that flash cut? Could it be 2/17/09, perhaps?
Me thinks we're in violent agreement.
So you agree with me - the GP post was wrong when he said a 10x power difference between NTSC and ATSC.
Now, that may be a drop in the bucket as far as the overall cost of operating the station goes,
So you do agree with me, then.
Oh, so sorry, but that is incorrect. Thank you for playing, there are some lovely parting gifts out back.
Quote:
Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?
A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:
[...]
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.
You're not offering friendly insight, you're offering batshit conspiracy theories, and consequently there's no talking to you anyhow.
1.
Electricity is definitely a significant part of a broadcaster's budget especially when studio and other ancillary equipment is figured in.
Well, sure, but that has relatively little to do with the ERP of the transmitter, as you tried to say in the GP.
2. You're assuming that the transmitter is on 24/7/365. True for a lot of broadcasters, but some turn theirs off in the wee hours. In any event, I'll accept that it represents 3 employees instead of 1. I don't know for sure, but I would still suspect that the cost of the electricity is dwarfed by the rent for the patch of mountain top the transmitter sits on.
Power bills for megawatt TV stations are actually a significant part of their budget.
Um, no.
First, power levels are quoted in ERP - Effective Radiated Power. ERP is a product of antenna gain and transmitter power. Even stations with an omnidirectional antenna pattern typically have at the very least 8-10 dB of gain. Why? Because there's no point sending any power upwards from an antenna that is typically at a higher altitude than the viewers it serves.
1000 kW of ERP requires only about 100 kW of PEP if you have a 10 dB gain antenna. Assuming that your transmitter is 50% efficient, that means you're going to need 200 kW of electricity. Assuming an electric rate of 10 cents per kWh, 200 kWh per hour is $20/hr. In other words, the transmitter probably costs them as much as a single employee.