RSSNAB: Say No to "White Space" Internet
By Ed Oswald | Published September 11, 2007, 2:11 PM
Claiming to be acting on behalf of television viewers, the National Association of Broadcasters launched an effort to block measures to use so called "white space" for rural high-speed internet.
In early August, the FCC struck down a proposed device that would have utilized unused portions of TV spectrum to bring high-speed internet access to rural areas. The regulatory agency claimed that the device could not reliably find unused spectrum, and cause interference.
The NAB joined the FCC in opposition on Tuesday, saying that it will garner support of the agency's decision by running television and print ads in the Washington, DC area. It is likely aiming to get the ear of politicians, who may end up having the final say in the matter.
"Interference is not acceptable to our viewers. While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not," NAB chairman Alan Frank said. "Consumers know that computers unexpectedly shut down. TVs don't. TVs work and people expect them to work."
At a press conference, the NAB said the future of their business depends on interference-free broadcasts as the switch is made from analog to digital signals. The group also took issue with supporters of the product claiming that broadcasters oppose the rollout of rural broadband.
"Broadcasters support rural broadband through a fixed service," NAB president David Rehr said. "The issue is whether these not-yet-invented devices should be deployed at the expense of broadcast television. We think such a move would be wrongheaded."
The NAB also plans to send a letter to FCC chairman Kevin Martin dispelling any rumors of opposition to rural broadband.
Several electronics manufacturers have stepped forward to assist the NAB, including LG Electronics, to provide their support to the efforts to stop white space broadband.
Microsoft proves to be its own worst enemy. Maybe if they hadn't screwed up their own prototype before FCC testing, it wouldn't have raised so many red flags on this issue.
Score: 0
|what bulls***. just had cable installed in new place, 4 standard cable lines and 2 hd pvr boxes. recieved 25 of the 62 stanadard channels and 3 of 500+ channels included in hd package on the pvrs, none beign hd. called cable and it was a 'standard issue' that can occur during install....
Score: 0
|When Digital TV has as much range without dropping or stuttering then the broadcasters will have room to try and defend their current mode of transmission from "interference".
I live 25 miles north of some digital tv towers over FLAT terrain in the midwest. I still can't get reliable reception using a quality antenna with amp that is over 30 feet tall.
I'd like to see them try making digital TV actually work reliably first in longer distance rural areas (farther than 30 miles) before they accuse someone of screwing up their signal.
Score: 0
|Amen
I can't even begin to tell you how horribly my TV stations have stuttered over the past year due to their s***y services. If they want to pitch a b***h, then they need to get their s**t straight from the get-go.
WE WANT RELIABLE SERVICE! THIS IS HONESTLY NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR YOU GUYS CHARGING $70/MONTH!
It's a great thing that I live in a complex that won't allow other services, because I'd be there in a heartbeat.
Score: 0
|Wait, wait, wait... I call bull-s*** on this...
First of all, the cable TV spectrum is pretty massive and has yet to be filled. Moreover, most providers generally use the same spectrum ranges.
Even if that weren't true, with the pending requirement by the FCC to go all digital soon, that means the existing analog spectrum will be wide open for use.
So what that means is that there is PLENTY of suitable spectrum available for cable providers to offer this service to rural areas with dependable service conditions. Each provider would know what parts of the spectrum are in use for their areas, and could offer the service accordingly.
This all boils down to the fact that the FCC and NAB are regulatory boards that want control over the services, and they're not really committed to providing that non-tiered service that they are constantly promoting.
So much for net neutrality folks, it's just a scam to take control away from the companies that provide the services and give it to a government agency that has NO IDEA what consumers really want.
Score: 0
|Hey Paul Skinner, you really buy that garbage? Broadcast has higher standards? Broadcast TV screws up WHEN IT RAINS.
Thus, the switch to digital, because analog based TV rain delays WERE acceptable for years and years.
Score: 0
|Maybe if you have an antenna or satellite... or when power/cable lines are knocked down. I haven't lost cable service in several YEARS, though.
Score: 0
|Well, you're lucky then because when I had analog cable, it was significantly worse than broadcast, and would go out when clouds passed by.
Score: 0
|You've never seen your directTV "block up" when the clouds roll in?
At least with analog you get a staticed hard to see picture. When digital goes, it goes. Black screen with a simple Poor or No signal detected message on the screen.
Score: 0
|Cool. With any luck ppl will go back to grabbing a good book or do something less passive than staring at the TV ;)
Score: 0
|thanks! my thought exactly!!
yesterday i had to spend a day in hospital waiting room and had a chance to see the zombification process in person.
i don't think it would be a bad thing if suddenly that idiotic programming would have simply disapeared. this is not what television was invented for. or is it?
Score: 0
|"While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not."
Go, Mr. TV man, go!
That is a good company policy.
It needs to be proven to never interfere with broadcasters' spectrum as they paid a hell of a lot of money to be on their piece of spectrum.
Score: 0
|are you sure they PAID money for their piece of the spectrum?
Score: 0
|If they don't/haven't then how did they get that piece of spectrum?
Score: 0
|