Posted Tuesday 19th August 2008 15:46 GMT
I thought most transmitters were placed atop hills precisely because they provide line of site in all directions from the hill.
Know ye of any transmitters situated in the valley behind a hill?
Regards
Neil
Posted Tuesday 19th August 2008 15:46 GMT
The majority of the people trying to 'defend' the existing white space are themselves FCC Part-15 unlicensed users of the channels (old-style analog wireless microphones etc).
They have access to the frequencies on the basis that they must tolerate interference from other users. They have no unique right to occupy the channels. Perhaps if they feel so uptight about this they should put their money where their mouth is and bid against the Googles/Microsofts in a spectrum-auction?
Coat? The one with the spread-spectrum transmitter in the pocket.
Posted Tuesday 19th August 2008 16:53 GMT
Apparently Neil Briscoe lives in a place where all hills are nicely graded, with the transmitters atop the one tall one, and no other hill tall enough to block any house's line of sight. Or perhaps he has never seen a hill?
In California, there are many places where the "official" station of a given network, while closer, is not so well received as some far more distant one. With the coming of Digital TV ("You get it well or not at all"), this is going to be a real problem for a lot of people. And a big boon for Cable companies, who of course wouldn't think of jacking up their rates just because now they're _really_ the only choice.
Posted Tuesday 19th August 2008 16:53 GMT
<<Know ye of any transmitters situated in the valley behind a hill?>>
Ever drive into Scranton PA? The Whole town is at the bottom of a mountain. transmiters would have to be "aimed" to get conerage if they were on the hill.
Also, while I suspect that digital TV will not have a working fringe area (Digital dies instead of just getting a bit snowy) A portable device may not be able to detect a weak signal, and could end up using a channel while the mobile device is between the TV staion and the viewer. The Viewer having installed a "tower" to hold her antenna.
Posted Tuesday 19th August 2008 20:58 GMT
There could be several hills you know. Even if the TV transmitter is on a hill a second hill could block it (unless the first hill is a whole lot taller). And if the white-space transmitter were in that "shadow" it could interfere with people who are not in the shadow, but near by.
I do hope they can work something out. The spectrum is over-regulated IMHO, we need more bandwidth for general public use.
Posted Wednesday 20th August 2008 05:31 GMT
Of course this shit is going to interfere with TV. On the other hand 70% of channels are unused in the US. Why not just de-allocate 70% of the band? Everyone has cable or satellite anyway, and besides that TV is complete bull-shit. Fuck it, take it back.
And for god sake don't sell it to Verizon when you do take it back, or else we will just end up paying $0.25 / text message with a locked phone and a 3 year commitment. Fuck them.
Posted Wednesday 20th August 2008 10:02 GMT
Is the question the politicos will ask.
And mostly the answer is yes -- only the poor and desparate watch broadcast TV -- middle class voters have cable or satelite.
So the airwaves will be free -- for google anyway.
Posted Wednesday 20th August 2008 16:15 GMT
In Los Angeles, there are well over 50 free TV streams, counting DTV main, DTV sub, and analog channels. Many people are cutting the cable, and taking down their little dishes. People are discovering that getting TV directly from the stations results in abetter pictures with a lot less ha$$le.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly mobile & wireless newsletter - click here
Back to the article
