Interference concerns over "white space" use.

[poltergeisty]

That's what Major League Baseball and NASCAR along with other Big sports leagues said in a regulatory filing with the FCC. That's not all. Executives from News Corp (who own Fox), ABC, NBC, and CBS signed a letter in protesting a plan to use so called "white spaces" proposed by Kevin Martin, the FCC chairman and backed by Google. The issue is also raising eye brows with a senior law maker in asking Kevin Martin to explain his plan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49P0S220081026

Is it a possible that re-banding will be an issue in the future?

[poltergeisty]

More insight to the matter with links to various sources.

http://mashable.com/2008/10/26/fcc-w...spectrum-vote/

[unitcharlie]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

...Is it a possible that re-banding will be an issue in the future?

Looks like it...

[gmclam]

This is a huge issue for anyone who watches TV. Yes even if you get your TV from cable or satellite it could affect you if you watch "local" stations. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to have lots of transmitters out there on TV frequencies? What happens if they are near your cable company's head end? Or where your satellite provider receives local signals?

And soon it will not just be some interference pattern in your picture. It does not take much disruption to a(n ATSC) digital signal to make it freeze, hiccup or just drop out. All of the prototypes built to test this concept have failed. Yet the FCC wants to approve this issue before the next administration takes office. Many big companies are just interested in the "free" spectrum. If this is approved things are going to be quite a mess for OTA TV in the USA.

[comsec1]

in five years when this part of the spectrum is unusable due to interference there will be a massive rebanding project of the spectrum to clear it up. who will pay for it.

[kb2vxa]

Just the latest in a long line of poorly thought out plans the FCC has rammed down our throats and made a complete mess of it. Is there anything ELSE the government can mess up? You bet there are and when Murphy runs things, anything that can go wrong will go wrong and just the way they planned it to go wrong and always at the worst possible time. Somehow a perverse Orson Wells laughs in my ear; "We always sell wine before its time."

Rock and roll definition of rebanding; The Allan Parsons Project. (;->)

[poltergeisty]

Update-

It appears that Dolly Parton, Guns N' Roses and Church pastor Rick Warren have concerns over the FCC's idea to allow companies like Google to use so called "white spaces."

Parton's concern, and that of other opponents, is that new technology would disrupt broadcasts and use of wireless microphones. Their first goal is to get the FCC to delay its Nov. 4 vote. Even former Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton urged Martin in an Oct. 28 letter to give "all due consideration" to concerns raised by opponents of the move.

Businessweek

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

Update: It appears that Dolly Parton, Guns N' Roses and Church pastor Rick Warren don't aggre on the FCC's idea for "white spaces."

Not sure what you mean?

[kb2vxa]

Dolly Parton? I bite my tongue. (;->)

[shaft]

Originally Posted by gmclam

This is a huge issue for anyone who watches TV. Yes even if you get your TV from cable or satellite it could affect you if you watch "local" stations. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to have lots of transmitters out there on TV frequencies? What happens if they are near your cable company's head end? Or where your satellite provider receives local signals?

And soon it will not just be some interference pattern in your picture. It does not take much disruption to a(n ATSC) digital signal to make it freeze, hiccup or just drop out. All of the prototypes built to test this concept have failed. Yet the FCC wants to approve this issue before the next administration takes office. Many big companies are just interested in the "free" spectrum. If this is approved things are going to be quite a mess for OTA TV in the USA.

Most of the larger cable outfits have direct feeds to the local affiliates. I know there are some that do not, but I think interference is not going to be an issue here.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by shaft

Most of the larger cable outfits have direct feeds to the local affiliates. I know there are some that do not, but I think interference is not going to be an issue here.

Most do NOT have direct feeds. Broadcast quality video over leased service costs a LOT of money.

Most have sat for the networks and "superstitions" and antenna farms for the locals.

[gmclam]

Originally Posted by shaft

Most of the larger cable outfits have direct feeds to the local affiliates. I know there are some that do not, but I think interference is not going to be an issue here.

Certainly when a cable head end is "close" to a broadcaster, they set up a direct feed. But there are 100s of cable systems in outlying areas that depend on over-the-air signals to receive the stations they send down their cables.

In other words; in locations which are 'distant' from TV broadcast towers, where cable operators are picking up these weak signals (from a tower), you'll have these low power transmitters nearby (that can't receive the distant TV station because they are at much lower elevation) on the same channel.

There are some discussion going on that if any of these low power unlicensed transmitters get within about 60' of some televisions connected to cable, it can play havoc. Keep in mind cable TV uses all the channels, so there is no "white space". All the signal needs to do is get into your cable or satellite box.

[shaft]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Most do NOT have direct feeds. Broadcast quality video over leased service costs a LOT of money.

Most have sat for the networks and "superstitions" and antenna farms for the locals.

Most DO certainly have direct feeds for this. I've set up numerous links in the past for this, for several cable companies. 5-10 yrs ago, you would be correct in your assumption, but not so much today. The cost of leasing dark fiber has become a cost effective means for cable companies to lease and set up direct feeds in many markets.

[kb2vxa]

Clam, what makes you think TV uses low power unlicensed transmitters? UHF translators been around long before the cable network as we know it today even existed and they're licensed to the broadcast station, ERP is 1KW as it is with all LPTV stations. "Low power" is a comparative term, a kilowatt is high power to a ham but low power to the broadcast industry. So far there haven't been any cable ingress problems due to their placement so I don't expect any in the future.

Ingress has always been a problem with public service, commercial and ham transmitters on cable channels; cable uses the same frequencies and there are no restrictions on transmitter or cable placement but that's a horse of a different color entirely. Bottom line is it's up to the cable company bound by federal law to prevent signal egress causing interference to on air services as you probably know but they're also bound to provide adequate service to the customer.

Leaks cause problems they just don't need, ask Larry. (;->)

FYI, the OTA pickup at the head end(s) hardly receive weak signals. Those antennas are single channel monsters on towers feeding receivers through hard line and are located in the primary coverage area of the broadcasters. It's rather like you putting up a 100' tower and the biggest baddest antenna you can lay your hands on when rabbit ears will do. Many cable systems' service blocks provide OTA service from more than one market and have multiple head ends, you can only shove RF down so many miles of coax and employ so many repeaters before the signal quality degrades to the point of being unusable.

I hope that clarified things a bit for you guys so relax Alfred, what me worry?

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

Clam, what makes you think TV uses low power unlicensed transmitters?

Where did you get the ideas his mention of "low power" was anything other then the proposed "white-space" devices?

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

UHF translators been around long before the cable network as we know it today even existed and they're licensed to the broadcast station, ERP is 1KW as it is with all LPTV stations. "Low power" is a comparative term, a kilowatt is high power to a ham but low power to the broadcast industry. So far there haven't been any cable ingress problems due to their placement so I don't expect any in the future.

Of course your error sends you off on a irrelevant tangent.

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

Ingress has always been a problem with public service, commercial and ham transmitters on cable channels; cable uses the same frequencies and there are no restrictions on transmitter or cable placement but that's a horse of a different color entirely. Bottom line is it's up to the cable company bound by federal law to prevent signal egress causing interference to on air services as you probably know but they're also bound to provide adequate service to the customer. (;->)
And the irrelevant rant continues.

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

FYI, the OTA pickup at the head end(s) hardly receive weak signals. Those antennas are single channel monsters on towers feeding receivers through hard line and are located in the primary coverage area of the broadcasters.

And those monsters will pick up anything in the area, including any "whitespace" system signals.
The hard line and all will not help at that point.

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

It's rather like you putting up a 100' tower and the biggest baddest antenna you can lay your hands on when rabbit ears will do.

And you will still receive interference from nearby transmitters.

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

Many cable systems' service blocks provide OTA service from more than one market and have multiple head ends, you can only shove RF down so many miles of coax and employ so many repeaters before the signal quality degrades to the point of being unusable.

Glad you are well versed in HFC system design. Of course more and more CATV systems have gone to fiber backbones.

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

I hope that clarified things a bit for you guys so relax Alfred, what me worry?

Like always.

[JerryNone]

FCC could free up 'white space' for broadband use

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...N.htm?csp=Tech

[poltergeisty]

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-a...hitespace-plan


Database? I remember a couple years ago about a thread on cell phone users and the annoyance they are in restaurants, etc. My post included an idea to use a database to block access except 911 in locations that did not want people using cell phones. Well, now it seems that idea will be used for these opensource devices using the whitespace spectrum.

I say database with a fat ? because is it a possible privacy concern? Sure, I can understand how it will work, but there should be questions. Database use means that all of the devices that use this whitespace spectrum must have gps embedded, i.e part of the design. You might as well embed a rfid tag in your skin.