Broadcasters Oppose Wireless Net Service 146
kaufmanmoore writes "The AP reports that the National Association of Broadcasters is launching ads to target lawmakers over a push by a consortium of technology companies including Google, Intel, HP, and MSFT who want to use unused and unlicensed TV spectrum (the so-called 'white space') for wireless broadband. Broadcasters are airing concerns about the devices creating interference with broadcast television. In a statement, NAB chairman Alan Frank takes a swipe at technology companies: 'While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not.'"
If broadcasts are so critical, how come.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the SuperBowl comes along and everything turns glitchy.
How come broadcasters who think they are the end-all and be-all of reliability can't get this most important of games broadcast without problems?
Hrumph (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like Bull to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd prefer more bandwidth over more TV any day. Many (if not most) of us have cable or satellite now anyway, so you're being marginalized whether you like it or not. Don't pretend that our attempts to distribute more bandwidth to home are what causes your falling profits and "glitches". Wake up - the world is digital, and it's on-demand.
Re:File under "oligopoly" (Score:2, Insightful)
Alan Frank, You Have Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadcast Glitch? There have been plenty but the next one can be permanent for all I care. Broadcast and all push media is a waste of spectrum, unable to deliver what users actually want like pull media can.
As a side note, someone who does not know the difference between M$ and Google reliability has to be a M$ user.
Re:Alan Frank, You Have Nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, "pull" would be completely impractical for TV and radio broadcasts over-the-air - how would the TV request a particular channel? It would need a way to contact the broadcaster and request a channel - meaning it would need a powerful, expensive transmitter.
I'll tell you what's a waste of spectrum though: analog TV and radio. Digital transmissions use up a lot less spectrum. At least, in the USA, analog broadcast TV is going away - but I figure AM and FM are here to stay; the installed device base is enormous.
NAB is full of idiots... (Score:1, Insightful)
I find that statement by these old curmudgeons and stalwarts offensive and I don't work for any of these companies.
I do however have cable internet and digital cable television (Comcast) and it is extremely glitchy, both the internet service and the TV. The TV service momentarily blinks out and pixelates about 10 times per day on average and sometimes worse. Quite often I get loud blasts of a split second static. These glitches are incredibly annoying if you are watching a movie and take you out of the experience.
The cable internet I have is one of their premium packages and though it is very fast it blinks out about once a week or so and I regularly have strange bouts of extremely slow speeds.
I can't help but think that a company like Google could do a better job of providing these services if they were so inclined. NAB is all about protecting their business interests by any means necessary. They've done their best to fight satellite radio: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/the-nab-a-history-of-hypocrisy.html [orbitcast.com]. The unfortunate thing is these guys have deep pockets and (which they buy their friends in Congress with) and influence policy without any concern of the common good of the people. These are OUR radio waves right? We employ the government to mange the airways to suit our interests right? Well at least that was the the idea...
Re:TV quality (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about signals, it's about viewers (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadcasters can whine about this and try to convince lawmakers (most of whom are tech-dumb lawyers) that this is all about protecting the radio frequency spectrum, but this is BUNK, Just as the FCC claims its regulation of computers is about protecting the spectrum is also BUNK.
If the FCC was REALLY about protecting the spectrum, then they would require some of the worst RF noise emitters (electric razors, light dimmers, lawnmowers, etc.) to be certified. There is a lot of money and prestige in regulating computer technology and none in regulating cheap low-tech devices. As long as they regulate important whizz-bang things like TV, radio, and computers, congress sees reasons to fund them at current levels. If they were the regulators of razors and light dimmers they might have less respect and lower budgets.
Similarly, the broadcasters are not worried about the spectrum (which sounds important and high-tech); This is about trying to keep from losing even more viewers (and the associated ad and/or subscriber revenue). Everybody knows that younger people are getting more of their entertainment from interactive web-based sources (news from the web, online games, etc) and this trend will likely SKYROCKET if low-cost high-speed net access becomes too available. Any roadblock they can throw-up will help hold back the tidal wave of losses.
Watch-out whenever somebody tells you that he, like some knight in shiny armor, is a defender-of-the-spectrum, (defender of the faith... protector of the realm... ) and all that stands between you and electromagnetic chaos. If he has a financial interest in the outcome then he probably is in it for the cash.
This is so old ... (Score:4, Insightful)
2. TV studios oppose {anything new].
3. RIAA opposes [anything new].
4. Music studios oppose [anything new].
5. MPAA opposes [anything new].
6. Movie studios oppose [anything new].
7. FCC [still hasn't got a clue]
Nothing new under the Sun, I guess.
Re:If broadcasts are so critical, how come.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scrap broadcast entirely (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it this way; how many hours of the content that is streamed out to the population actually gets watched, versus the number of hours pumped onto the airwaves, or into cable/fiber networks?
On Comcast, I get 20+ HD channels, 200+ regular channels, with the bandwidth of ONE regular (non-digital) channel allocated to my ENTIRE NODE for internet access (50-400 people, give or take).
If all those channels were allocated to data, with packet video streaming through the node, there would be much more room for everything.
It's the same with the airwaves.
Change _everything_ over to MPEG4, make everything packet based, and watch the available bandwidth skyrocket. It's not like the FCC isn't already forcing everyone to change their analog TVs to digital TVs. And it's not even gov't interference in the market; spectrum allocation is already done entirely by the government, and is currently monopolized by regional players.
Dissenting view - I agree with him (Score:5, Insightful)
Background: As an ex telecommunications engineer I know about reliability; as a radio ham I know about interference.
With that background, I am afraid it seems to me that he may have a good point that some industries tolerate failure (Vista bluescreens on me several times a month), while others do not - your (wired) phone, for instance, always works. A public telehpone switch or a TV transmitted do not need "reboots" - a reboot of a phone switch can take hours, so it is engineered to not need them.
So while there is a legitimate question about the validity of broadcasting TV, the fundamental point, that while it exists interference should not be tolerated, is valid. It took decades to get to reliable TV transmission, and that can all bre broken very quickly.