Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media United States Wireless Networking Hardware

FCC Plans to Allow Wireless Networking on Unused TV Channels 250

Posted by michael from the better-than-knight-rider-reruns dept.
RKBA writes "Federal regulators have endorsed a plan to use vacant TV bandwidth for wireless Internet connections. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell says it would 'dramatically increase' the availability and quality of wireless Internet connections -- especially for people in rural areas. Powell says it would be like 'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.' But TV broadcasters oppose the proposal. They argue that it would interfere with over-the-air television signals for millions of people. The FCC commissioners voted unanimously to begin the lengthy rulemaking process for the plan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Plans to Allow Wireless Networking on Unused TV Channels More

FCC Plans to Allow Wireless Networking on Unused TV Channels

Comments Filter:

  • FCC: Government actually working right? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:34PM (#9158693)
    Anybody who says that Michael Powell is in the pocket of the broadcasters or any other major company doesn't know what they're talking about, and this is the proof for anybody who doubts that.

    The FCC is actively looking to recycle frequency space for bandwidth wherever possible. I'm not even sure this is a workable solution... but just the fact that they're even going to open hearings about it is good for the masses.
    • Yes, and loosening the rules on media conglomerates was a great, public-focused policy decision. Thanks Mike!

    • Re:FCC: Government actually working right? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:44PM (#9158760) Homepage Journal
      Of course it's working right: to get Bush reelected. That's why the FCC is starting a lengthy process as the 2004 election heats up, when Bush's ratings are at their lowest - lower than any reelected president has ever beat. Think the FCC has reprioritized consumers over official publishers now, 90% of the way through Bush's otherwise rapacious term? At best, these rules will arrive in time to offer the incumbent mediocracy some free, valuable public airwaves realestate to mine with high-power WiMAX, in a couple of years. More likely, it will go nowhere, except to the PR machine, like Bush's Mars mission.
      • Chalking this up to a PR conspiracy is, oddly, naive. Wireless broadband is something only nerds care deeply about - a small subset of nerds at that. The rest of the population is mostly content with dial-up, and those who aren't (at least in large population centers) can already get broadband at home via wires.

        Now, it's POSSIBLE (though still on the paranoid side) that the FCC has some potential internet-supplying customers for those frequencies and is currying favor with those companies for campaign contributions, but this isn't an issue on which any large number of people will base their votes.

        I think the FCC should take as long as they want on this issue. When it comes it'll be nice, but until then I don't really need to have my e-mail and Slashdot headlines available to me everywhere.

        • The FCC should open the bandwidth unused by broadcasters to the more equitable (and increasingly more popular) digital network protocols, especially unlicensed and local. But thinking Michael ("Colin Jr.") Powell as elevated humans over corporations in his agenda under BushCo is a delusion. We're much more likely to get spectrum access turned over to users like you and I under President Kerry than under Return of Bush Jr. (we're be more likely under Colonel Klink, but he's not running, thank the TV gods). S

    • Re:FCC: Government actually working right? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richthofen80 ( 412488 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:55PM (#9158833) Homepage
      While I hardly think that Powell and others are 'in the pocket' of the presidential administration, there are valid criticisms of Mr. Powell. What was a rational and forgiving approach to indeceny placed on TV (when Bono from U2 accidentally swore, FCC chose not to fine him, recognizing that it was a mistake) has now become a witchhunt on the subjective term 'indecency'.

      I think the FCC's role was minimalized and trivialized as of late. They have a smaller role since the Internet is currently unregulated by the FCC largely, unlike phone or other companies. So now that they're twiddling thumbs, they feel they have to jump all over any minor outrage.

      • One interesting point is that the FCC doesn't and can't investigate an offending program until some viewer steps forward and claims to be offended.

        An interesting case in point is forming now that Howard Stern pointed out a questionable discussion on Oprah's show. A Stern fan has now stepped forward to be the complaining witness... and now Oprah's being investigated in a way that most likely would have slipped under the radar had Stern not said anything.
      • "While I hardly think that Powell and others are 'in the pocket' of the presidential administration,"

        He started out in this life very close to the pocket of the secretary of state.

      • Re:FCC: Government actually working right? (Score:4, Informative)

        by SEE ( 7681 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @10:48PM (#9159309) Homepage
        Powell's the wrong one to blame. For that, you have to go to Democratic commission member Michael J. Copps.

        Copps was one of the two members of the panel who voted to levy fines in the Bono case, while Powell was one of the three who voted against. Copps is also the dissenter who said there shouldn't just be a fine in the Stern case, but instead license revocation hearings for stations that carried Stern.

        Despite "liberal" prudes like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, Catherine MacKinnon, and Andrea Dworkin, there's this continuing unthinking automatic identification of censorship with the Right. So the pro-censorship actions of Democrat Michael J. Copps get blamed on Republican Michael K. Powell. After all, he's a Republican, so he must be the censorious crusader . . .
    • um, the whole point of giving the broadcast industry wide ranges of spectrum for HDTV without any fee was that they were supposed to vacate the normal TV spectrum by a certain deadline. that deadline has passed more than twice now.

      michael powell is in the pocket of the broadcasters and other major companies.

    • Anybody who says that Michael Powell is in the pocket of the broadcasters or any other major company doesn't know what they're talking about, and this is the proof for anybody who doubts that.

      He's giving away spectrum that is going to be given away anyway as digital TV comes on-line. This is an example of him being in the pocket of telcos/ISPs.

      The FCC seems to have long ago ignored its mission to make sure that spectrum is protected for all public use, and instead has shifted into a mode of giving it

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bobdoer ( 727516 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:35PM (#9158704) Homepage Journal
    Now all of the interference I get will be in the form of reruns.

  • Weird Al was right (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:35PM (#9158707)
    Thanks to this, now they will have it all on UHF.

  • Makes sense... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Radi-0-head ( 261712 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:36PM (#9158711)
    There are what, 69 television broadcast channels available? Even with a high-gain yagi on the roof, I only get a handful in my local area (San Diego) plus another handful from LA and the surrounding areas.

    The other 55 or so channels are just static... begging to be used.

    I for one welcome our new broadband-in-place-of TV overlords.

    • Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:39PM (#9158730)
      The other 55 or so channels are just static... begging to be used.

      The problem is, just because you see static overpowering any useful signal doesn't always mean that there isn't a weak one there.

      What may be an unused channel number to you could be a used one in the next TV-zone over... therefore too much of another signal on that channel might interfere with some people on the edge of the coverage range.

      These devices are most certainly are going to need to be "smart" in determining what an "unused" channel really is...

      • Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Flingles ( 698457 )
        Think outside the box. Broadcast TV over internet.
      • These devices are most certainly are going to need to be "smart" in determining what an "unused" channel really is...

        Umm... why would the devices have to be smart? The FCC would still regulate the band, just not dedicate it towards TV broadcasting. Then humans, not the transmitters, would determine the available frequencies. This is a definite "good thing" for broadband and the rural areas in perticular
        • Its very hard to determine if a channel is free. Its easier for a DSP todo it than a human.

          The only way this could work is through an online database that determines what channels are free in your area. They devices almost need to be location aware and download the data automaticly. Another solution is they could have beacons in your area that announce the free channels. Basicly you power up the access point and it listens to the beacon for a free channel.

          If the user has control over the channel someone i
    • I'm in rural San Diego county. Three channels: Fox, ABC, and CBS. Fox looks like a snowstorm, and ABC looks almost as bad. 66 channels reserved for wireless sounds like a great idea, especially since almost everyone uses cable for television-rabbit ears are generally a thing of the past.

    • Re:Makes sense... UHF offers 420 MHz of space (Score:5, Insightful)

      by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:54PM (#9158825)
      UHF covers a massive chunk of spectrum -- from 470 MHz to 890 MHz. Even if you carve out some 18 MHz notches for local UHF channels, you still have hundreds of MHz of usable spectrum. And in rural areas, the full 420 band could be used for some serious wireless networking. With good compression/encoding and high enough SNR, multigigabit wireless might be possible.
      • Even with the overly generous assumption you would have 420 1-Mhz bands, doesn't a metropolitan area suddenly become an area where "2 Khz ought to be enough for everyone"? Or am I missing something?

        I'm presumimg that we're talking about ranges between radios of at least 10 miles, otherwise its still got an infrastructure/last mile problem to create smaller transmission ranges.

        Or am I missing something about this? It seems like you'd want at least a couple of Ghz or a cell structure to ensure that there

    • Even with a high-gain yagi on the roof

      A what?

      How does it work?

      Is it better then a cheap amplified set-top antenna?

    • Even with a high-gain yagi on the roof, I only get a handful in my local area...

      I bet you don't actually have a high gain yagi on the roof, i'll bet you have a low gain log-periodic on the roof. Most roof top tv antennas are log periodic, which are designed to cover a wide frequency range, not for super high gain on one frequency.

  • More like... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SCSi ( 17797 ) <corvus@v3.1415926adept.com minus pi> on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:36PM (#9158714) Homepage
    'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.'

    More like putting a bike lane between two lanes of freeway.

  • Slashdot on channel 47 would be nice (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrRuslan ( 767128 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:39PM (#9158732)
    Does this mean my TV is gonna get slashdoted somehow?

  • Vacancy (Score:5, Funny)

    by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:40PM (#9158745)
    "For more than half a century, vacant TV channels (which represent some of the most valuable spectrum available) have been underutilized," Gelsinger said in a statement.

    With all the daytime talk shows and nighttime reality shows on now, I'd say that all channels are vacant.

    • Re:Vacancy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:45PM (#9158769)
      With all the daytime talk shows and nighttime reality shows on now, I'd say that all channels are vacant.

      I'd especially argue that there are certain religious broadcasters who are putting out such unwatchable programs that I doubt the people who are paying for the operation are even watching. I'm not against such operations on religious principal, but the idea that if nobody is watching, you're wasting the bandwidth.

      There should be a minimum standard that should be attained by all TV stations for a signon-to-signoff ratings average. Even a religious or shopping program can survive, but there has to be at least some interest in the community in order for the station to keep on the air.

  • Yay.!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by beacher ( 82033 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:41PM (#9158749) Homepage
    Seeing how the entire TV spectrum is pretty much vacant, this means good things and more bandwidth! Let the porno webcams commence! Out with the bad air, in with the sexually explicit bad air!

  • AM Radio Spectrum (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How feasable would it be to do the same with the AM radio spectrum? A look at the US radio spectrum [doc.gov] shows that a huge portion is allocated twards AM radio.
  • "....They argue that it would interfere with over-the-air television signals for millions of people...."

    Honestly, can't really see that as such a bad thing! When's the last time you missed something really quality on tv? ;-)

  • Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leshert ( 40509 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:46PM (#9158772) Homepage
    The broadcast media industry have a history of opposing technology that has a hair of a chance of affecting their signal--whether or not the science is on their side.

    For example, the National Associaton of Broadcasters (and even National Public Radio) opposed [npr.org] extending licenses for low-power radio on the grounds that it would interfere with existing licensed signal--even though most people who really understand this know that it's not the case [prometheusradio.org].

    The real issue in these cases is usually not technical--it's about control over the airwaves.

    • Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:52PM (#9158809)
      One of the biggest power tools that the broadcasters use to shut down competiting uses of their frequencies is to claim that when you put radio transmitting equipment into the hands of people other than them, it'll be either incompentently or improperly used such that it exceeds the rated signal strength.

      Pringles Can setups are a perfect example. There's nothing wrong with using such a can to redirect the signal... however, if the resulting redirection is too sucessful, it can take a consumer device that started as a perfectly illegal omnidirectional transmitter and put more than the legal limit of signal going in the direction its pointed at.

      Sometimes, the urge to hack can be cited against us...
      • The people that accept the broadcaster's position blindly would IMO have been either bought or are plain naive.

        I don't see how a sub-watt transmitter can hope to be competing with a transmitter running on tens of kilowatts in any meaningful fashion. Add that with the channel separation that should be involved if you aren't even using the same bands.

  • Why don't they... (Score:3, Funny)

    by polecat_redux ( 779887 ) <spamwichNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:49PM (#9158792)
    ...take the unused bandwidth and divert it toward broadcasting shows that havn't been dumbed-down for the masses?

  • Loose cannon (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ice Station Zebra ( 18124 )
    Fist BPL, now this. The people in Washington are just loose cannons. None of these people understand the engineering behind the decisions they are making and therefore their decisions make know sense. This is only going to create chaos in the RF spectrum and it is going to lead too chaos in the market place. Imagine this. You buy brand X wireless router, but it doesn't work. Your friend's in the next state say, it works fine for us. Best buy has mass returns for particular routers in particular citie
  • That way viruses can spread faster.
    • That way viruses can spread faster.

      Are you saying that all developments in network tech should be halted, because as we communicate faster, so will the viruses and worms?

  • I'm all for it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The act of opening up the TV bands to wireless devices could breing about a sharp increase in new business. Similar to the large impact that the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi standards did.
    Although a far more heartening prospect is the potential for this to bring more broadband services to remote areas, particularly rural ones, which are often exclusively plagued with dial-up.

  • Amateur Radio Transverters (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 14, 2004 @08:57PM (#9158849)
    This is kinda like what some amateur radio operators are doing with 802.11b transverters to lower the frequency to help in non line-of-sight situations. You can even increase to frequency to evade interference issues.

    Frequency Transverters for Wireless LAN Devices [qsl.net]

    2.4 GHz to 700 MHz Converter [qsl.net]

  • Good start (Score:2, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 )
    Using unused channels is great, but I would much rather have an ultra-fast internet connection and download movies when I want them.

    I don't know wether this is even technologically feasable (maybe have bittorent help out?), but it's not going to happen -- if it did, it would mark the end of TV commercials, and we don't want to see those go away, do we now?

    I can still wish, though.

  • This Was The Plan All Along (Score:3, Informative)

    by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @09:08PM (#9158902)
    This was one of the driving reasons behind the federal requirement that TV stations broadcast in "digital" and "HDTV" by a certain date. The digital signals take up less bandwidth and the FCC knew all along that they needed more bandwidth for wireless phones. So once all the TV stations switch over, they will be required to surrender their old frequencies back to the government, who will re-allocate them to wireless/cell phones.

  • Possible censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @09:21PM (#9158964) Homepage
    I hope this is not an excuse for the FCC to regulate the Internet. Would use of the public airwaves give them an excuse to regulate the Internet the way they regulate television and radio?
    • The proposal is to open the frequencies for _unlicensed_ transmitters like the one in your WiFi card.

      Trying to impose licensing after a big-bucks industry springs up would be tough. Possible, but tough.

      Trying to regulate content would be like trying to regulate every WiFi card. Good luck. (Those use the public airwaves too).
  • ...there are conflicting lobbying dollars at work. This should be a colorful (if not altogether ugly behind the scenes) exchange.

  • I can see the ads already... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rune2 ( 547599 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @09:37PM (#9159030) Homepage

    Slashdot: coming to a TV near you!

  • Datacasting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Friday May 14, 2004 @09:49PM (#9159086) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't some sort of datacasting part of the original digital TV spec, but kicked out of the US implementation? That certainly happened here in Australia. So, instead of a range of digital TV braodcasting entities, some using HD, some using multiple camera angles and some datacasting, we have a boring set of official digital TV signals with some half-assed wireless networking or something show-horned in.

    Your tax dollars at work.
    • Wasn't some sort of datacasting part of the original digital TV spec, but kicked out of the US implementation?

      It's still in there. But the broadcasters can't even cope with television transmission at the moment. I'm in New York, which by most definitions is not a backwater town where the broadcasters can't afford transmission equipment. But just one of them actually broadcasts proper PSIP information (UPN). CBS transmits a mostly DVB stream instead of a proper ATSC stream. The local PBS affiliate has a co

  • This is already common (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kc8jhs ( 746030 )
    The practice of using the bandwidth of non-present broadcast TV stations is almost the rule in professional audio equipment, such as used at concerts, clubs and even tv stations gathering news.

    It is a somewhat questionable practice, but due to the low power of the transmitters it rarely causes interference. The exceptions to this are, for example the theatre districts in major cities, such as New York, where dozens of establishments attempt to operate large numbers (40+) of wireless microphones each, in c

  • What's"empty"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mike Hicks ( 244 ) * <hick0088@tc.umn.edu> on Friday May 14, 2004 @10:09PM (#9159171) Homepage Journal
    Hmm.

    Having grown up a fair distance from most of the TV channels (probably no towers were less than 50 miles from us except maybe one), yet being able to view 15-20 channels with a large yagi antenna, I am concerned about this. Well, heck, I'm concerned about HDTV reception too.

    I grew up in southeast Minnesota, near Rochester (where the Mayo Clinic is), though the town I was in was one of the highest regions of land in the area. My family mostly pointed our antenna northward at the Twin Cities, from which we could receive eight major channels (well, except when the weather was bad): 2 (PBS), 4 (CBS), 5 (ABC), 9 (was UPN, now Fox), 11 (NBC), 17 (PBS), 23 (now WB, and the infamous originator of MST3K), 29 (was Fox, now UPN). As the PAX network started up, we could sometimes see 41 from St. Cloud.

    When the weather was bad, or annoying things like late-running baseball games took up a Cities channel, various other options were available by turning the antenna. CBS stations were also available from Iowa and Wisconsin. There was an ABC affiliate near the Minnesota/Iowa border, and the local NBC affiliate's tower was not far from the border either. Several PBS stations were able to be picked up to the east, west, and south.

    Recently, I experimented with receiving HDTV signals with a Linux-compatible pcHDTV [pchdtv.com] card. I was really annoyed to see that we had to directly point our antenna at the transmission tower to have any hope of picking up a signal. In the analog days, it was at least possible to get the gist of what was happening on most channels, even if they weren't aimed at directly by the antenna. Channel surfing at my parents' place is going to get a lot more dull (it wasn't great to begin with ;-)

    HDTV transmitters (at the moment, at least) put out significantly less power than their analog counterparts. Theoretically, the same coverage is available with this lower power, but as I described, I think the FCC has a different idea of what reception and coverage actually are compared to what I think they are.

    Then again, the pcHDTV card probably has a relatively poor tuner, but I definitely worry about it.

    I think Michael Powell has said a few times that he things that "Free TV" (over-the-air broadcasts) are going the way of the dodo. Certainly, many people have been more interested in cable and satellite, but there is a loss of local flavor in that arrangement. I certainly credit a lot of my education and interest in science and technology to the availability of several PBS channels in my area. Even now, I live in Minneapolis, where I cringe when I think that only two PBS stations are available (well, you can say that more are available when the HDTV sub-channels are considered, but the programming on those doesn't really interest me at the moment).

    Anyway, I just feel that the FCC probably won't properly answer this question. Maybe they will, but I have significant doubts.

  • Stupidity (Score:2, Informative)

    by goobenet ( 756437 )
    This is sheer stupidity. the UHF bands were supposed to be "vacant" by 2000 originally, welcome to america, DTV recievers aparently made of platinum. Besides that, hams will have a field day with this, quite literally. Remember how much stuff "fits" between TV allocations. (The entire FM spectrum is between channel 6 and 7) Think about the size of the TX required, and how much the FCC will have to limit/license this to hell and back? Channel 29 requires 5 megawatts of power just to cover a metro area. (minn

    • Re:Stupidity (Score:3, Informative)

      by jgabby ( 158126 )
      I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is 'sheer stupidity.' If it's based on the reasons given in your post, you may want to try reading about the actual proposed system.

      The FCC will not have to license this at all. If you'd actually read about what they're doing, you you would have seen that this is intended for unlicensed devices.

      I'm not quite sure how the HAMs got into this, but I don't think they'll be terribly concerned.

      The size of TV broadcast towers is more a factor of the distances they
  • And as an amateur radio operator, I'll miss sine waves.
  • I don't know enough to make an informed decision yet.

    Hey, I'm just saying what everybody's thinking. :)

    Call me Billy Bob, I'll just go light a candle and read some Aristotle. Maybe hijack some UHF in the mornin, afore I feed the cattle.

  • Doubling the lanes metaphor (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @10:31PM (#9159253)
    Let's not forget what usually happens with road widening. The road is heavily congested with four lanes, and by the time two more are added, the road needs another two or its still just as congested. Highways through really developed areas are being widened every two years or so, some have reached phenominonal widths such as the 12 lane interstate now passing through the center of Atlanta GA and supported by a loop bypass that is at least 6 lanes in most parts, and yet these roads remain on the brink of massive rush hour gridlocks.
    Won't broadband access go much the same way? By the time the technology exists and can be widely implemented to move X amount of data over TV bands, won't the demand be for 2X, or more?
    Some people have claimed that widening highways is an expensive and very short term solution, and that some real developments of mass transit are both cheaper in the long run and more able to actually grow faster than demand. In the same way, isn't it likely that something else, such as (for just a few examples)laying some good solid fiber optic cable, or modifying the phone company's baseline all digital systems to extend the potential range of ADSL, are potentially much better solutions? I'd even look at Internet over Power Lines before I'd have much confidence in this (well, maybe not).

    • Re:Doubling the lanes metaphor (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Friday May 14, 2004 @11:41PM (#9159484) Homepage Journal
      I think this is much more than doubling the lanes. With ATSC, each _channel_ represents about 20Mbps, which is better than the 5 or 11 Mbps that we get out of wireless "b" that possibly hundreds of neighborhoods have set up up.

      Multiply that by the 40+ unused TV channels at any given location, dividing by the fact that 2.4GHz wireless ethernet now has three effective channels (1,6,11 under 802.11 in US) and you have an expansion factor of maybe over 30 times the aggregate bandwidth of current industy standards.

      Of course, I'm not counting the various fairly proprietery networks and bands, such as Canopy and Tropos, but client stations for those fetch over $500 each, and base stations going for over $2000 I think.
    • Atlanta's road system is so congested because East coast road construction seems to ignore some of the obvious enhancements from other places around the world. Atlanta backs up because you have these huge roadways, piping down to single lane exits which typically exit onto a road near a stop light. Atlanta could be fixed easily by widening the exits at a few key points and making sure those exits were not easily backed up by a stop light within the first 1/2 mile.

      The same situation exists currently for the

  • franky (Score:2, Interesting)

    by curator_thew ( 778098 )

    Quite frankly, broadcast TV is a dead medium: the sooner it can be replaced the better, and several countries are working on that. I tend to wonder whether digital/HDTV is just as short lived as mini disc was, and the reality is that in the next 5-10 years, we'll be streaming media over IP.

    It makes sense for FCC and regulaters to accept, and even push forward, the kinds of technologies that can superceded TV, even if it upsets the TV operators.

    Seriously, broadcast TV is increasingly junk and fails to serv

  • Honk if you think this is a non-issue! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DOCSIS (your cable modem) uses unallocated space in the cable access band (quite a bit of it) to transmit data, and I've yet to see anyone complain about their cable television quality (apart from how much static is there originally).

    Also, most analog-allocated bandwidth will be replaced by HDTV bandwidth, so there will be lots of space in the airwaves when it's made mandatory in a couple of years.
  • They argue that it would interfere with over-the-air television signals for millions of people.

    Why do {advertisers|broadcasters|marketers|media distributors|lawyers} constantly make specious arguments like this? It only detracts from their credibility when they legitimately take issue with something.

    Wait, nevermind... Most people's don't have the attention span to notice.

  • its faster to bittorrent a show than to watch it. we dont need terristial broadcasting anymore.

    bye bye. pack up your vacumn tubes and go home now tv broadcasters.

  • The broadcasters dug this hole themselves (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday May 15, 2004 @01:29AM (#9159838) Homepage
    For years, broadcasters have been insisting on "adjacent channel protection", to "protect" TV sets with crappy tuners from interference. That's the main reason TV bandwidth utilization is so low. Now it's coming back to bite them.
  • what happens when someone wants to start a new station and they cant because all of the open frequences are taken up?

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Close