FCC White Space Rules Favor Tech Industry 135
holy_calamity writes "The FCC has come to a decision on the rules governing devices that make use of the unlicensed wireless spectrum between TV stations, with commissioner Genachowski trumpeting a new era of 'super Wi-Fi.' Most crucially, the FCC dropped the requirement that devices sense TV and wireless microphone signals. Instead, they can geolocate and use an online database to learn which white spaces are available in their area. That makes tech firms happy because it provides a software-centric alternative to developing complex new sensing hardware."
Fucking finally (Score:4, Insightful)
The sliver of bandwidth we get with the ISM band is really not very useful in heavy population areas. The shift to 5ghz wifi didn't seem to help as in all the cases I've used it range was borderline useless and N degrades pretty badly. In a spot where G gave me 3 or 4 mbps, N gave me the same or less.
I can't wait for the new wifi standard to use these frequencies. Now if we can get rid of broadcast television altogether and just move to an IPTV solution and be done with it.
unfortunetly its not all that good (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.martinsuter.net/blog/2009/02/white-spaces-wifi-on-drugs.html [martinsuter.net]
Re: (Score:2)
(1) It's doubtful these TV Band/whitespace Devices will have much range. The article you quote claims "50 miles" but to achieve that kind of distance on the UHF band requires at least 100,000 watts. That kind of power would drain the battery an iPad-like gadget in about 1/4 minute.
(2) Cellular phones/internet occupy 600 megahertz of space. TV only 200 megahertz. To say (or imply) that cellular only has a "sliver" while television is hogging space is backwards. Cellular space is already 3 times larger
Re: (Score:2)
>>>(null)
I double checked and channels 43 and 48 are open channels. HOWEVER per the current FCC rules they can not be used, because they are adjacent to channels (42/44 and 47/49) with fully-licensed television stations. 43 and 48 are closed.
So we're back to being unable to use these TV Band/whitespace Devices along the Northeast/Midatlantic corridor (the I95 Megalopolis).
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
I don't want tv shows/movies/news LOCKED UP behind a paywall (where you have to subscribe to Comcast or ATTT Wireless to gain access to the programming). The FCC has a plan right now, endorsed by our president, to shrink TV from 50 to 25 channels. It used to be 83 channels but they keep nibbling-away piece after piece.
The same way RIAA/MPAA is using the ACTA treaty to nibble-away your right to backup your personal CD/DVDs. In another five years I fully expect broadcast TV won't exist at all.... they'l
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because the industry has no habit (RIAA) of trying to screw the consumers (ACTA) out of their money (overage fees) for the sake of profit (Apple & Microsoft) at the expense of choice (Comcast monopoly). You're right. Let's trust them.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ne
Re: (Score:2)
Theaveng must live in a densely packed city.
In my 100 meter zone (basically a 2 football field-wide circle), I have 7000 people per square mile. I have no clue how that translates to a circle two football fields wide, but even if it's only 100 people, it would still be two channels == 40 Mb/s == only 0.4 Mbit per person's TV Band/whitespace Device
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>>>there are no restrictions on modulation schemes for these devices
Yeah nice try, but there ARE real world limits ("You cannae break the laws of phyiscs!" to quote Scotty). Just as 4 kilohertz phone lines have a real-world limit of 56 kbit/s so too does wireless communication have a limit.
The FCC tried a 16VSB modulation that doubled the bitrate to approximately 40 Mbit/s, but it failed. There was too much noise and it corrupted the broadcast data. And even if a miracle occurred and you did m
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice I've sited number-after-number-after-number. In other words I backed-up my opinion.
Where's your backup to prove that these 6 megahertz channels can carry more than 40 Mbit/s datarate? Yeah I know. You don't have anything - meaning your OPINION that it can carry more is worthless. I and other readers can reject your claim that 6 MHz can carry more than 40Mb/s as fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
And here I am again, posting more numbers. The UMTS (3G) cellular network squeezes ~2 Mbit/s per 1.25 megahertz wide channel. So that would be only 9.6 Mbit/s in a 6 megahertz wide TV channel.
Where is this supposed "speed" you kept harping about?
That's only 1/4 what a theoretical 16VSB TV broadcast does.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Copied from another forum: "I checked the showmywhitespace database for my location and then found that it doesn't show correct results for my son's location North of Temecula CA (70-mi SE from Mt Wilson, N of L.A.), which is his ONLY source for network programs. It shows ALL channels being "free" for WSD, even though they aren't. First tip-off the database is hozed..."
Continued here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1048951&page=7 [avsforum.com]
Same with my results showing a bunch of channels as "f
Re: (Score:2)
The Whitespace Database claims these channels are "free" for my location but they are NOT free:
22 WNJS at 70 miles
27 WGTW (TBN48) at 50 miles
31 WPPX (ION61) at 50 miles
39 WLVT (PBS29) at 60 miles
44 WMCN (ind.44) at 70 miles
45 WOLF (FOX45) at 70 miles
49 WGAL (NBC8) at 45 miles
50 WNEP (ABC16) at 70 miles
50 WDCW (CW50) at 60 miles
51 WGAL (NBC8) at 10 miles
For most of these stations I don't care if the kid next door turns-on his iPad and starts broadcasting over top of them, but if he did over NBC-8 or ION-61 o
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I would lose 3 stations but a total of 10 channels
Based on the stations you listed, you would lose the following programs due to TV Band/whitespace Devices broadcasting on channels 27, 31, and 51. And yeah that does suck.
NBC
thisTV (movies)
TBN
Church Channel
JCTV (music videos)
Smile of a Child (kids)
Enlace (more kids programming)
ION
IONlife
Qubo (toons)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Although many may consider over the air television & radio to be bloated, outdated and unnecessary. One should consider that they offer one advantage over IPTV, etc - there are no constraints upon the quality/availability of the service when there is significant demand. When a tornado is eminent, when a 9/11 happens or something along those lines - people will flock to them en masse. When you have gargantuan spikes in traffic, there can be problems. Meanwhile, over the air media works just fine, even w
Re: (Score:2)
Tornado schmornado - the real challenge to IPTV is the Super Bowl. You must admit, when over 100 million people (in the
Re: (Score:2)
>>>There is no reason to send the same packet of data addressed to each person.
Yeah but at some point the packet has to "split" in order to be delivered at each home. So if you've got 100,000 people in the same area watching the Super Bowl HD, the wireless cellular internet will quickly be overloaded. It will collapse. This does not happen with broadcast TV which delivers a gross bitrate of 30 Megabits every second and never overloads, regardless how many people are watching.
Also Broadcast TV is
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
So it's BROADcast not multicast. The SuperBowl would be transmitted to some fixed channel (say 10.10.10.10) and everybody who wants to watch would tune to that IP address.
That does sound feasible. Basically a modernized version of how TV works (tune to channel 10 and watch the game). So why doesn't it exist yet?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>broadcast TV which delivers a gross bitrate of 30 Megabits every second
>>
>> Wrong, American TV broadcast is max 19.39Mb/s
Wrong. I said GROSS bitrate. So maybe you should read more carefully before you bitch at someone like..... well, a bitch. ;-) My sentence as written is correct, with one minor correction: "Broadcast TV delivers a gross bitrate of [~]30 Megabits every second."
Re: (Score:2)
If multicast was decently supported it would help a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got a way to receive and watch over the air media during a power outage, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
These usually get you by for short periods: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=234&name=UPS%20Battery%20Backup%20700VA%20and%20more [tigerdirect.com]
These work well for a interim solution or if you are in a suburbant area: http://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com/style/gasoline-generators.php?source=goog&keyword=gas%20generator&gclid=CLr-oNanoaQCFVVx5Qod-Ce27Q [electricge...direct.com]
And these for areas where you need to worry about extended periods: http://www.electricgeneratorsdirect.com/stories/38-H [electricge...direct.com]
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
During the Memphis floods the only thing that still worked was Broadcast TV. The cellular network had "drowned" and people were cut off completely from the internet or phone service, but TV still worked because the towers were on high hills above the waters.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in tornado alley.
Radio simply doesn't cut it. You want to be able to SEE, on a map, where the tornadoes are hitting so you know if it's on the other side of town and nothing to worry about, or if it's right next door and you should cower in the bathtub. This is why Broadcast TV is an absolute necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where I'm living now. We've had three tornadoes in our county this season, and radio was sufficient for all of them. Of course I did take advantage of online weather radar, but even without that our announcers were on the ball enough to let us know what was going on. On the other hand, TV is definitely a superior medium for critical weather information for those that have access. Internet data is far superior to TV if you know what you're looking at. I use all three when available and fall back on ra
Re: (Score:2)
Now if we can get rid of broadcast television altogether and just move to an IPTV solution and be done with it.
What do you have against free TV? I have two choices: Comcast and radio, and their monopoly lets them treat customers like shit. I have better uses for my money than feeding a monopoly, so I get my TV and internet off the free airways (antenna for TV, unsecured wifi for internet).
As long as cable and internet are monopolies in most cities and towns I can't go along with getting rid of free TV. Give
Re: (Score:2)
THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN CHANNELS. Channel 8 occupies 180-186 MHz. Channel 9 occupies 186 to 172 MHz.
Do you see any space between?
Gott in Himmel! Ignorance is fine - but I (and others) have told you time and time and time again THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN CHANNELS and still you refuse to hear. God. Your college professor must have been beating his head against the wall, when he was trying to teach you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooops. That last post was meant for someone else. Sorry mcgrew
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they do in the UK - provide free television by satellite. I wish we had this in the US, Mexico, and Canada but so far neither Dish, Directv, or any other company has offered it:
http://www.freeview.co.uk/ [freeview.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
If I were a politician I would be pushing for a Congress or State law mandating all phones lines be upgraded to high speed DSL within a year. THAT is the best way to cheaply and quickly get Rural users off dialup and onto faster connections. NOT this wireless nonsense.
The copper lines are already running into every American homes - all that's needed is to install the DSLAM box in each neighborhood to upgrade the speed from ~50k to ~1000k. No need to hire hundreds of thousands of ditch diggers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>And who's going to pay to lay all of the fiber to all of the DSLAMs you're suggesting get installed?
(1) Most DSLAMs would not use fiber. Mine doesn't. It's fed through the traditional copper network.
(2) For REMOTE locations greater than 15 miles from the central phone office, they would need to run some fiber. Based upon what I've read, they typically run it across the existing wooden poles. And the cost comes from the Universal Service Fee that has been applied to monthly bills for the last
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 home
Re: (Score:2)
>>>No part of the USF goes towards broadband Internet access.
No not yet, but if I was a Congress or State politician my "DSL for Everyone" law would reappropriate those USF funds towards the DSL upgrade.
.
>>>DSLAMs are installed in the central offices, not the neighborhoods
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. Perhaps not the greatest solution, but it does eliminate the need to hire millio
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Are you really too fucking ignorant to read my entire post?
>>>You're still [stringing] fiber [over poles] to within 15 miles of every home.
Fixed that for you. And as I recall I said that in my very first post. "Are you really too fucking ignorant to read my entire post?"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
White? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha!
Oh, wait, that was the lamest joke I've ever heard.
White Space (Score:2)
And here I was thinking we were going to have a Python vs. C-family of languages [wikipedia.org] and One True Brace Style [c2.com] flamefest
No, you still don't get your ... (Score:1)
... free citywide democratic wireless mesh.
What? (Score:4, Funny)
The FCC is too intrusive as it is. They can stay the hell out of my code. They can pry my tab key from my cold, dead fingers.
Hrm. Sounds evil. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
So what you're saying is that my device will constantly determine my location and report it to the government.
Yes, it's for your protection. In case of cyber attack, they can take over your PA system and provide "helpful" instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
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, anyho
Re: (Score:2)
I have two service providers in two different cities, and load balance between them.
Any geolocation scheme I've seen regularly misses by, oh, about half a state.
And sometimes I VPN, and share my VPN connection over the air with my other devices.
In which case the geolocation services tend to miss by several states (or countries).
Clearly geo-location can only be an aid, and not be a required part of a working solution.
So how can this work without the end-user "volunteering" his coordinates and registering his
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that GPS is on the way out as a reliable system as public-use satellites don't get replaced in the same tempo as they fail (we're down to what, 26 out of 36 now?), but most wireless data use happens where you can't get a GPS fix -- indoors.
The TV broadcasts you have to avoid have no problems penetrating your walls, while the weak GPS signals can't pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I made similar comments myself. Bear in mind that the database could potentially contain all the applications for future towers/transmitters as well, which would allow devices to black out those frequencies on the proposed start date (which is the absolute earliest the station could transmit even if everything got approved in a timely fashion). Even one download per month is likely way more than is actually needed. From submission of an application to approval can take up to a year. As long as
Re: (Score:2)
Just for shits and giggles, have you bothered to actually look at the FCC ULS (Universal Licensing System) database? Or are you talking out of your ass? I know, stupid question since you're posting AC.
They make large chunks of it freely available, and it isn't small (several hundred MB). They even provide a rather convenient set of SQL scripts to set up the required tables in your DB and import the data. License holders have street addresses. Towers have lat/long coordinates. Both of which are a hell
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that if I'm doing a show, I'll go to the database and register the location and frequencies I'm using, and the dates I'll be using them. They also set aside two TV channels in every area to be used by wireless mics (and other similar devices). That'll be great if a) I can fit into two TV channels (which is likely) and b) my mics actually hit the right frequencies (unlikely). If I need more spectrum or I'm not on the right channels, then I've gotta register.
Re: (Score:2)
Flat wrong.
The Geolocation Database is nothing more than a list of TV Stations. The TV Band/whitespace Device then uses GPS to find where you're located, looks at the database for your spot, and avoids using Channels assigned to these stations (as well as the channels on either side of the station). Simple.
Note that there's no way for government to track you using this method.
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm. Looks like they changed things slightly. I'd now have to certify that I'm using all available spectrum between channels 7 and 51 before I get to register in the database. Which may mean that I get to purchase a whole new set of wireless mics if I don't happen to be able to tune to the right channels. Lovely.
In any case, I couldn't care less if the government is tracking me (not that they could) via this database (I'm not the original poster).
A summary as it relates to wireless mics is here: http:/ [televisionbroadcast.com]
Not quite out of the woods yet (Score:2)
Note specifically the part about "the rules will require devices to be capable of knowing their location and using an online database to find out which channels are active in their area". Seems that presupposes that whitespace devices for all time, or at least until the rules are changed, will need both geolocation ability and WAN connectivity. I seriously doubt that users will ever be allowed to simply plug in the operating location to the device, as that would allow the whole system to be easily circumv
say goodbye to Title 47 CFR Part 15 (Score:2)
Exactly how much power do i have to pump through my wireless microphone or my guitar hero, or my router to to get it considered as a broadcast device?
-- cynicism is not something I leave to the optimist.
AV Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
We're a small AV company, 8 employees, and even we have 40-50 wireless mics. We got rid of our old ones and bought new ones that were all in the allegedly safe bands. However, even though we don't have to worry about breaking the law, now we will never really be able to know if the mics will actually work in any given location.
We travel a lot to convention locations around the country. While the databases that the FCC talks about sound nice, in practice they simply do not exist in any meaningful way. There is no one out there asking us to input our frequencies into a DB somewhere, and even if there was, it wouldn't help when we travel.
We will, of course, invest in spectrum analyzers we can take on the road, but even then we won't know if someone powers up after we've done our sweep and settled on frequencies. This is a big problem because if a mic goes out on the CEO of a big company we may have to comp a portion, or all, of a show to keep them happy.
I'm happy to have better wireless communications available, but it won't come without a big cost to us and companies like us.
Re: (Score:2)
If you walk over other people's bandwidth on licensed frequencies that don't belong to you you're making the problem worse not helping it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Audio/midi applications normally run alternate layer 2 protocols to provide a reliable delivery ala ciscos rdp.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you have a part 74, subpart H license? If not you don't get to register in the database. You were probably committing a crime prior to 2009 (better check that statue of limitations before admitting these things with a pseudo-anonymous handle) and are still committing a crime if your mics broadcast more than 50mW of power. You are lucky we don't throw you in prison.
The proper thing to do is stop using wasteful analog technology and get on the spread spectrum frequency hopping bandwagon like all the other
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The nice thing about laws that make everyone guilty is that you get to pick and choose who you prosecute.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a venue frequency coordinator for a major sports league. This ruling is causing a LOT of worry for us. In a venue with 40 wideband channels for coaching, lots of OTA TV, plus the venue's own wireless mics, The little whitespace we have to work in now is getting awfully crowded. The notion of reserving two TV channels to work in at one of this league's games is absurd. We can only hope that we can ban the silly things from the entire premises out to the fence.
So is this "the next big thing? (Score:2)
So what do you all think are the prospects for this service? Does it hold out the potential to challenge the wireline carriers like Verizon or Comcast? How about providing specialized services for businesses? Will this be a niche business, or does it hold out the potential to become a major player?
Accuracy of predictions for mountainous areas (Score:2)
There is a website which predicts what channels I should be able to receive from where I live. My locatio
Here's MS Research's Web Service API (Score:2)
This new development sounds stupid to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine indoor non-moving devices like routers will just need an address or zip code put in. Its cell phones, laptops, and other mobile devices that'll use GPS or the cell phone network to tell them where they are. Heck, they could broadcast the location in the headers of the wifi packets and have the client just search for them or some other dynamic approach.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Does this now need an inbuilt GPS?
Adding GPS to new wireless routers will cost so little that it won't matter in the least. TI makes a $5 part [gpsbusinessnews.com] that is probably sufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's actually very good news.
With the use of sensors, you have the "ABC problem". You have three collinear stations, A, B, and C. Station A is a licensed FCC broadcasting station. Station B is a receiver for that station. Station C is a frequency-hopping device that looks for an empty channel. Because station C is too far away, it cannot "hear" station A, but it is still close enough to station B to cause interference. Now granted, this is less likely when you're talking about multiple orders of m
Re: (Score:2)
It just shifts the problem. A will not be interfered with, but D, another white space transmitter will interfere with C just fine because the database says that channel is open.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point of white space transmitters, though. As unlicensed transmitters, they are required to not interfere with licensed transmitters. The purpose of the regulations are to prevent those who are paying for exclusive rights to license spectrum (broadcasters) from being interfered with by freeloading unlicensed use of the spectrum.
As far as one unlicensed transmitter interfering with another unlicensed transmitter, the FCC doesn't care. CFR part 15 says that such unlicensed transmitters mus
Re: (Score:2)
IF they had maintained the listen and back off requirement IN ADDITION TO the avoidance of licensed channels, they wouldn't be as likely to interfere with each other.
I fully agree that they should avoid interfering with licensed transmissions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The favor regulation that helps the majority of people. - VAST generalization.
The Tea Party is a bunch of idiots that have no plan to implement the changes, is funded by the Koch brothers, and has people specifically trained to disrupt rational conversation.
The things they claim to want o do? we did them,. 100 years ago. it didn't turn out so well for the vast majority of people.
Sweat shops, death traps, 10 year old working, pollution. That's the unfettered free market. People with power abusing the pos
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one sensible favors complete non-regulation as the left claims the right wants and no one sensible favors regulation for regulation's own sake as the tea party/right claim the left wants.
Basic regulation is a requirement of our society in order for there to be a free market in the first place and for laws to be enforced. Basic regulation and oversight provide the structure for the market to exist in.
I happen to be left leaning and do think that the Tea Party in general, especially the higher echelons of
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
see the gulf oil spill for an example of this. Drill Baby Drill
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not that we have too many laws, but rather that the laws are not neat. In some cases, you can say that a particular task is governed by a single set of laws, but this is rare. For the most part, a task is governed by multiple subparts of thousands of different laws, and it's utterly unmanageable trying to figure out if you are violating one or a dozen of them because of the poor organization, the lack of cross-referencing, and the general failure of the code to conform to any reasonable sta
Re: (Score:2)
I think all laws should not just have a sunset provision, but a testable intended effect when possible. For instance, a law requiring seatbelts would have an intended effect of "reduce fatalities due to car accidents." then when the sunset comes up, reasonably good evidence that the law is having the original intended effect must be presented.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that introduces a lot of work load into the system, which is arguably highly overstressed as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only overstressed because the people running the show are too busy grandstanding and politicking to actually get anything done. If Congress operated at even a tenth the efficiency of an equivalently sized body in private enterprise, they'd have plenty of time to get stuff done. Instead, they're too busy fighting with each other to do what we're paying them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem is that our system is based on common law, meaning that how a particular law has been applied in the past, precedent, directly affects how it is applied in the present.
In other words there are real laws on the books that were never written, and our system is supposed to work that way. The founders were very aware of common law and what it meant.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay, so long as the way it is applied makes sense based on the law, and so long as the law is written in such a way that the intent of the law is clear. Sadly, that latter part is quite often not the case in practice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest, I'd rather my devices have a modicum of intelligence and look around to find the best frequency to use. To do otherwise leaves the whole system open to attack. What happens if this central authority server goes down? What happens
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know where you get the notion that these devices are reporting their location. Quite the opposite except insofar as accessing the central database through some mechanisms could potentially reveal that there is a device of that type at that IP number, which to some very limited degree, gives a crude approximation of a location.
The proposed method of operation is as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. They're out of their frigging minds, then. I hope they're starting to build their server cluster now. If you think a site like CNN.com is high bandwidth, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Put another way, Wi-Fi-enabled devices are predicted to cross the 200 million mark within 4 years. Multiply times even a ten megabyte file, and they'd be passing almost 2 petabytes of data per day. I don't think they've thought this through. That's about a tenth the traffic of Google or Steam. They're either completely s**t-for-brains stupid or they're trying to guarantee that this fails....
Re: (Score:2)
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.