[opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 21:31:28 -0400
John Willkie wrote:
>Bob;
>
>Nit: I believe the "panel discusion" of cable you were talking about was
>ACTUALLY a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee from Tuesday last
>week. I saw most of it live. It did not address cable, but VOIP and
>incumbent LECs, and the subject was a rewrite of the 1996 rewrite of the
>telecommunications act. The speakers included Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon,
>the CEO of Alltel and Brian Roberts of Comcast. Note: Verizon has no
>significant cable interests. If I'm correct, we have radically different
>levels of perception. If I'm incorrect, we live on different planets. Take
>your pick.
>
>
No I watched a panel of at least seven cable CEO's discussing cable, its
future etc. It was a rebroadcast. We also do live on different planets.
>Now, I'll address some of your "points."
>
>"They seemed to think they were hot stuff because they are
>starting to deploy VOIP."
>
>This might have applied to Brian Roberts, but Ivan Seidenberg made the point
>that since the 1996 telecom rewrite, not a single incumbent telephone
>company has made a penny on service; they've only survived by getting
>larger. So, I don't know who the "they" you refer to are.
>
>
As I said it was cable not Telco.
>"While friends I talk to are designing megaband wireless networks that
>bypass them all."
>
>That's at least 90% crap. What frequencies will they use?
>
>
60 thru 80 GHz, 2.4 GHz, 3.5 GHz, 5.2 GHz, 5.8 Ghz, lower 700 MHz, it
looks like some of the TV spectrum below channel 51 and even short range
lasers.
>"If you want to be very narrow in your definition of Wi-Fi and restrict
>it to 2.4 GHz and 802.11b"
>
>Well, well. First of all, I don't salute canards. I never made any mention
>of 802.11b, but BY DEFINITION (not, obviously on your planet) Wi-Fi is ONLY
>on 2.4 ghz. Other services can use those frequencies, but Wi-Fi does not
>include other frequencies. Hint: Wi-Fi is an unlicensed service: you can
>only do that at Wi-Fi power levels on 2.4 ghz. PERIOD.
>
>
You didn't mention 802.11b but some narrowly define Wi-Fi as 802.11b and
2.4 GHz. A wider definition would include 802.11g and 802.11a at 5.8 GHz.
http://www.wi-fi.org/OpenSection/glossary.asp?TID=2
"An interoperability certification for wireless local area network (LAN)
products based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) 802.11 standard."
"Wi-Fi , 802.11, is composed of several standards operating in different
radio frequencies: 802.11b is a standard for wireless LANs operating in
the 2.4 GHz spectrum with a bandwidth of 11 Mbps; 802.11a is a different
standard for wireless LANs, and pertains to systems operating in the 5
GHz frequency range with a bandwidth of 54 Mbps. Another standard,
802.11g, is for WLANS operating in the 2.4 GHz frequency but with a
bandwidth of 54 Mbps."
>"Of course broadcasting is being supplanted very effectively by cable and
>satellite already."
>
>Have you no intellectual honesty? You have previously said that
>broadcasting is being supported by cable and satellite, now you seem to
>think it is being supplanted by broadcasting. Hint: there are limited
>broadcast channels, and the number in the U.S. is getting smaller. At the
>same time, the number of channels that can be delivered by cable has gone
>up, and the only real restriction on satellite channels is the number of
>orbital positions and the number of receive antennae. MOST OF THE VIEWING
>OF CABLE AND SATELLITE IS OF BROADCAST CHANNELS. Charlie Ergen was at a
>Senate hearing the previous week saying he could not survive unless he had
>HDTV local channels. Of course, you are more informed of these affairs than
>I (not) and you are more familiar with the satellite business than Charlie
>Ergen.
>
>
"Broadcasting" as in OTA broadcasting is being supplanted by cable and
satellite. There is no need other than regulatory for a broadcaster to
deliver his signal via OTA. It is and could all be delivered via other
microwave or fiber connections. The rational for using this spectrum for
such broadcasting is dwindling and as it approaches zero the legal
requirement that a broadcaster must be able to deliver via his spectrum
a clean signal to the cable headend in order to qualify for must carry
does not justify the use of the spectrum anymore.
>Even in your rantings, I see not a hint that 700 mhz is a Wi-Fi frequency.
>Weren't you trying to counter my position on this? I said nothing about
>higher frequencies.
>
>
700 MHz is not per se a Wi-Fi frequency but owners of channels 54, 55
and 59 which were recently auctioned are contemplating the use of this
700 MHz spectrum for Wi-Fi type services. If it is semantics we are
interested in then the use of licensed spectrum would not qualify by
definition as Wi-Fi.
>"If not supplant them then radically change them in ways yet to be
>determined."
>
>Speak of youself, amigo. I know how they have been changed, and I think I
>have a good grip on where things are going.
>
>"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."
>
>PROVE IT!
>
>
It will be proved in the doing. A lot of video is being watched OTI
(Over the Internet) today. The technology to increase bandwidth to the
next level is available. IP is not regulated and a plethora of media
devices to help receive, store and distribute video is being invented
and even sold already.
>"Most broadcast spectrum in use today will be used for mobile services of
>different kinds."
>
>George Gilder has been putting out this bullshit since 1989, that I am aware
>of. Will it be the case during his lifetime?
>
>"We see it with the sale of channels 51 through 69."
>
>Your hype and ignorance extends even to your use of tense. I have yet to
>see a sale of channels 51 to 69. And, since you think that ATSC is dead and
>that analog will be around for many years, your arguments are not
>consistent. Who would have known?
>
>
You will have to check the FCC site for Auctions #44 and #49.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/49/
>"We see it with the FCC looking to now use channels below 51 for Wi-Fi."
>
>You are patently incorrect. BY DEFINITION, Wi-Fi is unlicensed. The FCC is
>talking about licensing the frequencies to service providers. Just because
>T-Mobile and others are using unlicensed frequencies does not make WiFi a
>licensed service. You are not an engineer, obviously: nobody can rely on
>what you say, and intellectual rigor is not your cup of tea.
>
>
As I read it the FCC is thinking of allowing the "unlicensed" use of
this TV spectrum. It can be used by individuals or entities like a WISP.
No license means no license however. This is from the FCC release of
*May 13, 2004*
"The Commission’s Part 15 rules have enabled the development of a large
number and variety of devices including wireless computer networking
cards, wireless connections to printers and keyboards, and wireless
headsets and computer connections for cellular and PCS phones. Many of
these devices currently operate in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands.
In the Notice, the Commission proposed to classify the unlicensed
broadband devices that could be used in the TV bands into two general
functional categories. The first category would consist of lower power
“personal/portable” unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi like cards in
laptop computers or wireless in-home local area networks. The second
category would consist of higher power “fixed/access” unlicensed devices
that are generally operated from a fixed location and may be used to
provide a commercial service such as wireless broadband internet
access. The Commission proposed to allow both of these types of
operations in the TV spectrum, provided appropriate measures are taken
to ensure that operations are limited to unused TV channels"
>"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."
>
>First? Who cares? Second, Motorola IS Public Safety, the BIGGEST WASTERS
>OF SPECTRUM IN THE U.S. They've also used the LA County Sherrif and LAPD,
>which we called the "posse." That was in the mid 1980's. Spending money in
>DC is irrelvant: much can be accomplished without spending a dime. You
>only need to kill all the viewers.
>
>"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."
>
>Broadcasters watch their spectrum very closely. You're thinking just of
>their broadcast channels, and I'm talking about all their spectrum,
>particularly microwave. The spectrum is not underutilized: millions of
>people use it every day. You want to replace that with hundreds of users.
>Fat chance.
>
>
We disagree with what underutilized means. Your millions out of 285
million citizens and your single program channel when multiple HD or 12
SD programs could be broadcast is my definition of underutilized.
The FCC proposes to use unused channels at low power levels.
The broadcasters can watch "our" spectrum all they want. It is how well
they are using it and how many viewers still use it that matters.
>'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'
>
>So, I'm led to believe that the Commission is a single entity, and that this
>entity referred to one of it's consituent members as "new FCC Chairman
>Michael Powel." Hint: Powell was a new FCC chairman in 2001.
>
>Also, haven't you called for him resigning so that you would have clean
>sailing for your COFDM in USA folly? What will your position be tomorrow?
>
>
My position is and was that I fervently hope that broadcasters are stuck
with 8-VSB for the foreseeable future. Works for me. There is no mobile
business plan if all broadcasters can use COFDM.
>Why can't UHF vork at VHF freqencies? Because the term applies to
>frequencies higher than those of VHF. Maybe you should ask someone with a
>clue?
>
>
I have no clue as to what you are talking about here. I believe a smart
Wi-Fi radio can work at VHF, UHF and 5.8 GHz at the same time. Again
maybe my definition of Wi-Fi is to broad for you. The FCC seems to be
using the term in a broad sense that includes VHF.
Bob Miller
>John Willkie
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Miller
>Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:27 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: WiFi Supplanting Broadcasting? Get Real!
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: