[opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium

  • From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:04:57 -0800 (GMT-08:00)

So, you are now of the belief that licensing helps prevent interference?  That 
wasn't always your position in this thread.  You even said something about 
"spectrum I don't own."  Nobody owns spectrum, they just use it as a public 
trustee subject to the communications Act.  Or, do you think I am wrong about 
that (for the moment) too (but you'll change your argument or position if 
confronted?)

You were talking about "proof of concept."  That sounds high-faluting, when you 
were really referring to a lower rung on the price curve.  Maybe "concept" 
doesn't mean to you what it's always meant to me.

Good luck with the cost issue.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Nov 6, 2006 8:07 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>
>And I pointed out that my interest had nothing to do with the
>consortium's proposed use. I am interested in the chips and other
>technology that could be used for other purposes. The longer range
>uses suffer from a small market that cannot generate inexpensive
>silicon. SiBEAM's vision is of a very large market that must create
>very low cost silicon. It may create something that can be used in the
>other market or in between the indoor and the 60 GHz radios. Something
>that cost more than $100 but less than $20,000.
>
>Interference is not a big issue with lasers and it is not as big an
>issue with these narrow RF beam 60 and 70-90 GHz radios either. The
>license required for 70-90 GHz was only argued for to prevent
>interference and it has a nominal fee for registering.
>
>Bob Miller
>
>On 11/6/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Which, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, has virtually 
>> nothing to do with the consortium's proposal, except that it uses similar 
>> frequencies.
>>
>> I guess you lost the concept that FM uses licensed spectrum and suffers only 
>> minimal interference, and that CB uses unlicensed spectrum and is full of 
>> interference.
>>
>> And, that there is a world of difference between enjoying 60ghz in your home 
>> on an unlicensed and minimally interfering basis, and trying to get a 60-ghz 
>> signal to travel up to 1.2 miles reliably without the protection of a 
>> license that gives you more protection from interference.
>>
>> I would point out that in the higher frequency bands, what is unlicensed 
>> today today tends to become licensed tomorrow (above 100 mw)
>>
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >Sent: Nov 6, 2006 7:44 PM
>> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>> >
>> >The distance we are talking about is up to 2 kM for 60 GHz and up to 5
>> >miles for 70-90 GHz. The beam is very narrow and say only 12 ft in
>> >diameter at receiver. More like laser than cb or FM.
>> >
>> >Bob Millr
>> >
>> >On 11/6/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> yeah, unlicensed spectrum is so much better than licensed (primary user) 
>> >> spectrum to send signals over distance.
>> >>
>> >> think cb versus FM radio.
>> >>
>> >> John Willkie
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Sent: Nov 1, 2006 1:34 PM
>> >> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>> >> >
>> >> >As far as I know that is all licensed spectrum, LMDS/MMDS, none of
>> >> >which I own. Also had a lot of problems with LMDS spectrum years ago.
>> >> >No, I like the very high directionality of this spectrum in the 60 GHz
>> >> >and 80-90 GHz and I like the fact that 60 GHz is unlicensed and 80-90
>> >> >is minimally licensed. That is a fee for and quick registration of
>> >> >only.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have no problem with IEEE 802.16 but I believe it is designed more for
>> >> >a shared shotgun RF use and not for the rifle shot full duplex
>> >> >multiple Gbps connections I am interested in.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bob Miller
>> >> >
>> >> >On 11/1/06, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> Bob Miller wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Line of sight yes but I don't think bird fade is an
>> >> >> > issue, more like window washer fade. The beam is
>> >> >> > spread near the transmitter and receiver. At low
>> >> >> > cost you could envision all nodes having multiple
>> >> >> > transceivers with each being full duplex backups of
>> >> >> > each other. A meshy redundant network
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob, I still don't understand what you are creating here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The article we're referring to talked about a 10 meter range system, 
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> internal hookup of audio/video equipment where the video can be
>> >> >> uncompressed. A wireless form of HDMI, if you will. That's why the
>> >> >> comparison with UWB, which is intended for a similar mission, or maybe
>> >> >> better characterized as "wireless USB."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You seem to be adressing something else. If you are trying to use a 60
>> >> >> GHz carrier for a two-way last mile link, then what's wrong with the
>> >> >> existing IEEE 802.16, MMDS/LMDS, which is already a standard that takes
>> >> >> you all the way up to 66 GHz, and does so with any number of optional
>> >> >> encapsulations (i.e. even ATM, if you like)?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bert
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> 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: