At 6:36 PM -0400 10/19/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:One must look at this situation from two related perspectives: 1. Protection of existing users/services is very important; as with any proposal to share spectrum, the key issue will be how much interference can be tolerated.And what you seem to ignore is the range between these potential new transmitters and existing receivers that use the TV spectrum, compared with the range between receivers and TV transmitters. The allowed 1 watt level is very high, if it's right across a drywall from a TV.
I am not ignoring a thing, I was simply stating a fact. From a technical perspective, the issue is going to come down to the levels of interference that will be permissible. My post was not intended to continue debating HOW MUCH interference can be tolerated.
2. licensing is a viable method to control the alternative uses of this spectrum, but it also opens up a can of worms related to the value of the spectrum that is being shared.That's another matter entirely. I'm just addressing RF issues.
RF issues are not what is in play here, which is what my post was trying to point out. potential interference is simply the tactic that the broadcasters are using (AGAIN) to protect THEIR spectrum. Unfortunately, you and many others are more than happy to play their game and help spread the FUD.
The broadcasters now understand that they cannot keep others from sharing this spectrum resource. They have managed to keep the hounds at bay for nearly three decades with the DTV scam. Knowing that the FCC is going to open up the white spaces, they are now trying to set the terms of potential use and competition.
Current incumbents, both the broadcasters using the TV spectrum and the companies that provide broadband services today (primarily cable and telco) would like any alternative use of the spectrum to be regulated and presumably encumbered with user fees so as to make these alternative uses less competitive with existing products/services.Again, this has nothing to do with the RF problems. It's fine to go off into other reasons why TV folk might not like this, but that doesn't undo the actual real issues with RF interference.
Once again, you are drinking their kool aid. The RF issues are actually quite easy to manage and have been overblown by those who are trying to keep the white spaces from being opened up to UNLICENSED devices. This debate is really about competition, not trying to protect a service that broadcasters depend upon for only one reason:
Retransmission consent. If broadcasters really cared about the spectrum they would use it to compete.
So, as usual, the real debate here is about protection - not from interference, but from potential competition.Not at all. You are simply ignoring what you don;t want to hear.
Well I certainly am growing tired of hearing your usual attempts to help the broadcasters play their shell games. At least you finally agree that the DTV transition has been about the protection of a lucrative franchise, not an attempt to regain a competitive edge over cable and DBS.
Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.