[opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 17:27:16 -0400
John, John;
I was watching the rebroadcast on C-Span of a Cable panel discussion
yesterday.
I wanted to say the same thing to them that you say to Eliott, "get
real". They seemed to think they were hot stuff because they are
starting to deploy VOIP. While friends I talk to are designing megaband
wireless networks that bypass them all.
If you want to be very narrow in your definition of Wi-Fi and restrict
it to 2.4 GHz and 802.11b then it would not supplant broadcasting. Of
course broadcasting is being supplanted very effectively by cable and
satellite already.
If you include in "Wi-Fi" the revolution that includes 802.11g, a,
802.16 and 802.20 or Wi-Max which can cover 2 GHz to 80 plus GHz IMO,
and more importantly, if you include the mindset change that the
regulators are going through then, yes, Wi-Fi will supplant broadcasting
including cable and satellite.
If not supplant them then radically change them in ways yet to be
determined. So change them that a rational being will have a hard time
recognizing the current broadcast/cable/satellite infrastructure we
know. And that is if they use the disruptive wireless technology
themselves. Anyone can build a wireless IP cable/telco/ISP company today
for less than the annual maintenance of a current cable company and
without the regulations. Their monopoly position is over it is just a
matter of how fast they want to cannibalize themselves.
Most broadcast spectrum in use today will be used for mobile services of
different kinds. We see it with the sale of channels 51 through 69. We
see it with the FCC looking to now use channels below 51 for Wi-Fi. It
used to be that broadcasters had to only worry about Motorola
encroaching on their spectrum. Now there are more people with dogs in
this fight. New owners of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, Public Safety
which wants access to channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, Wi-Fi manufacturing
companies who are making money and spending some of it in DC and a
growing Wi-Fi WISP community that is raising its voice.
The broadcasters on the other hand have not paid much attention to their
underutilized spectrum for a long time. They are not going to be allowed
to use this spectrum just to get their programming to cable headends
much longer.
As the current FCC Commish said last year,
"Whether he meant to or not, new FCC Chairman Michael Powell put the
issue on the table at an April press conference, in which he
addressed the implications for TV stations should cable and DBS attain
near–universal penetration. “If 100 percent of Americans don't get free,
over–the–air TV, what are we protecting?” Powell asked
The attack on this underutilized spectrum had just begun. Till now
broadcasters faced little competition for it. They do now and it is
already telling. They will have their own words thrown back at them more
and more. In arguing for must carry (of all content in a 6 MHz channel)
since 1999 they have over and over suggested that they needed must carry
because OTA broadcasting did not work well and required 30 ft. rooftop
antennas that consumers would not install.
They are right consumers are not and will not and the question just gets
louder "what are we protecting?"
One question, why can't Wi-Fi work below 2.4 GHz? You do know that it
does work at higher frequencies now like 5.8 GHz right?
Bob Miller
John Willkie wrote:
>Eliott, Elliott;
>
>First, I asked proponents to get real about Wi-Fi, and this was offered in
>response. Bad start.
>
>Second, I loathe USA Toady for the lack of understanding and news and
>superficial coverage. And, this was before the Jack Kelly scandal. At
>least his phony stories made their deadlines.
>
>USA Toady must have read something different than I did. What I read was
>that Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be able to use these
>frequencies for wireless internet service. Personally, aside from
>interference issues with these waspy wisps, I think this is a good idea.
>
>Don't confuse what is being proposed here with going down to Best Buy and
>rolling your own. "Service providers" are entities, not users sharing
>internet connections within or among homes and businesses.
>
>One interesting idea is that it will provide a return channel for suitably
>equipped equipment for interactive TV, with transmission circuits on similar
>frequencies to that of over the air television.
>
>The big challenge, for those of us interested in reality, is how Wi-Fi
>(WHICH ONLY OPERATES AT 2.4 GHZ) would be able to use frequencies below 700
>mhz. (Answer: it won't.)
>
>And, this would either be complementary to broadcasting, or complementary to
>Internet access.
>
>It certainly won't supplant broadcasting. Get real.
>
>John Willkie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Elliott Mitchell
>Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 7:35 AM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>
>FCC May Let Wi-Fi Go Between TV Signals
>By Paul Davidson
>USA TODAY
>
>Despite the objections of TV broadcasters, the Federal Communications
>Commission on Thursday is expected to propose allowing unlicensed
>wireless services to use vacant airwaves between TV stations.
>
>Under the plan, unlicensed wireless high-speed Internet services could
>use unused frequencies between channels 2 and 51 in each market, as
>long as they didn't disrupt existing stations.
>
>The proposal, expected to lead to a final ruling later this year,
>would pave the way for more robust and less expensive wireless Internet
>services by 2006.
>
>But some broadcasters say the new offerings could interfere with
>over-the-air TV signals.
>
>Today, Wi-Fi, or wireless fidelity, services let consumers with
>Wi-Fi-equipped computers get fast wireless Web services in coffee
>shops, hotels and airports. Also, scores of providers are delivering
>longer-range wireless broadband service in rural areas. With both,
>fixed broadband lines are hooked to antennas that beam to users over
>other unlicensed airwaves.
>
>But providers and equipment makers are salivating at the prospect of
>using the TV spectrum, which is in lower-frequency bands that let
>signals travel farther and better penetrate buildings and foliage. That
>means more seamless service and lower costs, because fewer antennas are
>needed.
>
>"This (spectrum) is beachfront property," says Peter Pitsch,
>communications policy director for Intel, a Wi-Fi chip maker. "In rural
>areas where the nearest broadcaster is 100 miles away, you could crank
>the power up and provide very low-cost wireless broadband service."
>
>New, intelligent wireless gear can avoid TV interference, say FCC and
>industry officials. Antennas can check a channel to see if a TV station
>is using it and even adjust its power based on the station's power.
>Also, TV stations' strong signals are generally invulnerable to weaker
>wireless transmissions.
>
>But Dennis Wharton of the National Association of Broadcasters says
>"real-life situations" often don't match computer forecasts.
>
>The FCC says it would limit wireless device power, among other
>safeguards. "We do not want to jeopardize broadcasters in any way,"
>says Ed Thomas, chief of the FCC's bureau of engineering and
>technology.
>
>Michael Calabrese of the New American Foundation, which promotes
>competition, says interference fears are a smokescreen.
>
>Broadcasters, he says, are eyeing the vacant spectrum to offer new
>subscription TV or other services. Wharton denied the claim.
>
>Thomas says the plan could benefit TV stations, which could use the
>unlicensed airwaves for interactive TV, sending digital TV signals to
>tuners in laptops. Consumers could take part in shows by buying
>products or answering questions.
>
>"One of our jobs is to always to seek out opportunities, but first
>things first" says Andrew Setos, president of engineering for Fox
>Group. Fox, he says, wants to ensure there is no risk of interference.
>
>===============================================================
>
>
>--
>Elliott
>
>Elliott Mitchell
>Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
>615-343-4521
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: