[opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON VACANT TV CHANNELS

  • From: "Bob Miller" <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:36:12 -0400

Sewer, yes, as I mentioned the use of "pigs" in the sewers to string
the fiber but with gas lines I know of no nano pigs that could do that
so you would have to dig up the streets. Too expensive. No with gas
lines it would be broadcast and whatever resulting interference. I
agree with John that gas lines being underground and a natural shield
in themselves would only offer interference where they interconnect at
either end.

Yes there are versions of gas line broadband that include fiber but
that would be initial install.

Bob Miller

On 10/14/06, Ian Mackenzie <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The proposals to use sewer pipes and gas pipes for broadband use fibre
Being run down the pipes instead of digging up the street to lay it.

There is no radiation.

-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bob Miller
Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:42 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON
VACANT TV CHANNELS

On 10/14/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Your complete lack of engineering knowledge is shown by your thought
> that broadband over gas lines will leak RF to any significant amount.

> (bpl is another matter; it's all about leakage.)
>
> First, there is the fact that broadband over gas lines involves
ferrous pipes.  Have you ever heard about a faraday cage?  (It blocks
rf.)  Gas lines are almost like that; think of them as very thick
waveguide. Most waveguide is non-ferrous metal, but they don't leak
much.
>
> Second, there is the physical issues about rf within waveguide.
Depending on frequency, the higher frequencies tend to bunch up just
inside the inner perimiter of the waveguide.  That means very little
leakage.
>
> Third, think of triple-shielded RF cable.  These have shields, and
sometimes drains, just a milimeter thick.  Multiply that by a factor of
10 or more, and you have gas pipes.  The ones in the street are much
thicker, by the way; I'm talking about the ones leading into homes,
where the rf leaks would be closer to consumer devices.
>
> Fourth, have you ever heard about a "ground" and what it does? (It
tends to cancel out RF that tries to travel through it.)  Have you ever
thought that the best ground is the, GROUND?  Have you ever seen a gas
pipe that was above the GROUND?  Gas pipes are buried a foot or more
below the ground, with just the meter and a few taps above the ground.
Not much chance to radiate there.  Also, these taps tend to be in rooms
that don't have receivers, like garages (water heaters) and kitchens.
>
> Just one part of this could radiate much, and that depends on how the
termination is done.
>
> And, even if they do radiate, there is little sense in using broadcast
frequencies for transmission, since data density is increased by using
higher frequencies.
>
Leaving aside your reminder as to my complete lack of engineering
knowledge, (I hadn't forget my ignorance) I do happen to understand the
basics of gas line use for broadband and think, as I said in a later
post, that it is the best of these "other" delivery methods.
Mentioning it was off topic probably since I was trying to show that the
FCC is on the attack as far as OTA broadcast TV spectrum and not trying
to protect it in any way. Choice of modulation and the care they took in
that choice, exhibit #1. Choice of codec and the care they took in that
choice, exibit #2. Lack of interest since, exhibit #3.

Decisions to allow use of smart radios an powerline broadband, exhibits
#'s 4 & 5. Statements made by current and former Chairman of the FCC,
exhibits #'s x.

Only thing stopping the sale of this spectrum sometime after 2009,
someone mentioning the success of OTA overseas and the thorny problem of
must carry without a broadcast license. And I think the guys and gals in
DC can handle that with China and the Olympics being the wild card.

Bob Miller

> What is being protected -- nowadays, in the breach -- are services
that work without any need for electrical power between the point of
origin and the receive point.  In an emergency, it's priceless.  Day to
day, it's very valueable, as will no doubt be proved anew a few years
down the line.
>
If I understand you I think I agree. With the right tools it is
priceless in an emergency and IS very valuable right now.

> Speaking of pacemakers, some of these devices will interfere with
legacy and current monitoring equipment routinely used in hospitals.  A
bad glitch or two could result in patients needing a pacemaker to be
installed.
>
Everytime you turn on a transmitter in a city like New York on spectrum
that has not been used  for broadcasting it seems you may be interfering
with medical devices. I think they send notices and await responses
before doing so, right?

Bob Miller

> John Willkie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Oct 14, 2006 1:01 PM
> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES

> >ON VACANT TV CHANNELS
> >
> >Somebody gets it! Be still my pacemaker (and numerous hospital type
> >devices??)
> >
> >No one going to mention broadband over power lines or gas pipes? Of
> >course neither of those will leak right?
> >
> >It looks like a full court press on OTA spectrum to me. Has since
2000.
> >
> >Like former Chairman Powell said in reference to the low numbers of
> >viewers who still depend on OTA, "What are we protecting?"
> >
> >Doesn't look like they plan on protecting anything much. And what
> >about that auction that is coming up? Many say it will dwarf the cell

> >auction we just had that brought in $14 billion. So some upstart
> >Congress-critter has to be day dreaming about just what channels 2-51

> >would bring.
> >
> >The only fly in this ointment is the success that OTA is having over
> >there, over just about any there. And this will all come to pass in
> >early 2009??? Just after China shows off its new OTA at the Olympics
> >in the summer of 2008.
> >
> >All the ammunition is dry and the pile is getting bigger. All someone

> >has to do is lob in a small mortar round and we know what that looks
> >like.
> >
> >Bob Miller
> >
> >On 10/13/06, flyback1 <flyback1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I see this as a not so subtle jab by the FCC at the free to air
> >> broadcasters.
> >>
> >> Hunold, Ken wrote:
> >>
> >> >Broadcasters *already* use this space, if only indirectly.
> >> >Wireless microphones, for one, already use these frequencies in
the TV band.
> >> >This is a huge hornet's nest that has been kicked recently by
> >> >these attempts to allow unlicensed devices to use these
> >> >frequencies.  There is much to suggest that these new devices will
not play well with others.
> >> >News, Sports, and Entertainment productions stand to be impacted
> >> >greatly by this step.  Just because there isn't a TV station
> >> >operating on a frequency does not mean that it is "unused."
> >> >
> >> >Ken Hunold
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> >On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> >> >Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:08 PM
> >> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >Subject: [opendtv] FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES
> >> >ON VACANT TV CHANNELS
> >> >
> >> >A lot of positive opinions about this move to use the so-called TV

> >> >white spaces, from each of the commissioners, is also available at

> >> >http://www.fcc.gov/, under 12 October.
> >> >
> >> >The going-in assumption seems to be that this "unused" space would

> >> >be used by Internet broadband access providers, and it would be
unlicensed.
> >> >But heck, if it's available, then why don't broadcasters
> >> >themselves go for it? Depending what the specifics are to be, e.g.

> >> >on power limits, broadcasters might make good use of it too, no?
> >> >
> >> >Are they permitted?
> >> >
> >> >Bert
> >> >
> >> >-------------------------------------
> >> >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267867A1.pdf
> >> >
> >> >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
> >> >October 12, 2006       Bruce Romano
> >> >(202) 418-2470
> >> >
> >> >FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON VACANT TV
> >> >CHANNELS
> >> >
> >> >Washington, D.C. -  The Commission today adopted a First Report
> >> >and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking taking the
> >> >first important steps toward allowing new low power devices to
> >> >operate in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where
> >> >channels in that spectrum are not in use by television stations or
other authorized
> >> >services.   This action will enable the development of new and
> >> >innovative types of devices and services for businesses and
consumers.
> >> >
> >> >In the First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that fixed

> >> >low power devices can be allowed to operate on TV channels in
> >> >areas where those frequencies are not being used for TV or other
> >> >incumbent licensed services.  The Commission declined to permit
> >> >operation on TV channel 37 that is used by radio astronomy and
> >> >wireless medical telemetry services; and on TV channels 52-69,
> >> >which have been reallocated for public safety and other mobile
> >> >services.  It also declined to permit the operation of
> >> >personal/portable devices on TV channels 14-20, which are used by
> >> >public safety service in 13 cities, leaving for further
> >> >consideration the issue of whether fixed devices might be used in
> >> >that band.  Marketing of such devices may commence on February 18,

> >> >2009, after the digital television
> >> >(DTV) transition is complete and all TV stations are in operation
> >> >on their permanent DTV channels.
> >> >
> >> >In the Further Notice, the Commission invited further comment on a

> >> >number of issues that were raised in response to the Notice of
> >> >Proposed Rule Making.  It solicited additional information that is

> >> >needed to determine whether personal/portable devices can operate
> >> >in any of the TV channels without causing harmful interference.
> >> >It also invited comment to explore whether low power devices
> >> >should be permitted on TV channels 2-4, which are used by TV
> >> >interface devices such as VCRs, and whether fixed low power
devices can be permitted on TV channels 14-20.
> >> >
> >> >The Commission made detailed technical proposals to facilitate use

> >> >of a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) mechanism to ensure that TV

> >> >band devices operate only on vacant TV channels.  In addition, it
> >> >sought further comment on implementation details for the
> >> >geo-location and control signal interference avoidance approaches
> >> >discussed in the Notice in this proceeding.
> >> >
> >> >The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to developing a complete
> >> >record to ensure that the final rules will protect TV broadcasting

> >> >and other service against harmful interference.  In particular, it

> >> >invited parties to submit test results showing that TV band
> >> >devices will not cause harmful interference.  In addition, the
> >> >Commission noted that it plans to conduct extensive testing itself

> >> >to assess the potential interference from low power devices
> >> >operating in the TV bands before adopting final rules.
> >> >
> >> >The Commission also invited comment on the desirability of
> >> >requiring licensing for devices operating in the TV bands. While
> >> >the Commission noted that a majority of the commenters have
> >> >expressed interest in operating low power devices in the TV bands
> >> >on an unlicensed basis, it sought comments on the relative
> >> >benefits of both the licensed and unlicensed  approaches.
> >> >
> >> >Action by the Commission October 12, 2006, by First Report and
> >> >Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 06-156).
> >> >Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and
> >> >McDowell.  Separate statements issued by Chairman Martin,
> >> >Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell.
> >> >
> >> >Office of Engineering and Technology contact:  Mr. Hugh L. Van
> >> >Tuyl,
> >> >(202) 418-7506, e-mail Hugh.VanTuyl@xxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380.
> >> >
> >> >FCC-
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >---- 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----------------------------------------
> >> >This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> >> >information intended for a specific individual and purpose.  If
> >> >you are not the intended recipient, delete this message.  If you
> >> >are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing,

> >> >or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >---- 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --- 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >- 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.
> >
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Other related posts: