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

  • From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:38:16 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

I can't speak to sewer lines (I'd hate to do repair splices down there), but I 
have heard of a gas line proposal that involves RF.  I'd cite it, but it was on 
my now departed laptop.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Mackenzie <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 14, 2006 5:48 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC TAKES STEPS TO ALLOW NEW LOW POWER DEVICES ON 
>VACANT TV CHANNELS
>
>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: