QuickTopic free message boards logo
NOTICE: QuickTopic is shutting down soon. Learn more.
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Open Spectrum FAQ

^     All messages            45-60 of 60  29-44 >>
60
all_hoon
12-25-2010
05:10 PM ET (US)
I read that unlicensed band means exactely open spectrum access is that correct?
59
Deleted by author 12-25-2010 05:09 PM
58
Common sense
05-18-2009
03:28 PM ET (US)
Libertarian whackos...no regulation means the loudest guy in the shouting match wins, which will likely be a corporation.
57
Anon
07-16-2008
08:18 PM ET (US)
Also as pointed out on slashdot. An open spectrum could easily lead to more commericlistaion than less since big companys could easily drown out all the little ones by now being able to broadcast on all frequencies.
Also it really wouldn't be a revolutionary force. The inetrnet, the telephone and even snailmail do a perfectly good job of communication with no need to clutter up the airwaves.
56
Anon
07-16-2008
08:15 PM ET (US)
*coughs* Just to point out that interference is not a metaphor and anyone with even a passing knowledge of physiscs would understand that waves interfere with each other.
55
GazRecrut
01-02-2007
12:41 PM ET (US)
 
hey everyone I am new here just thought I would send a shout out!!
54
kolkPerson was signed in when posted
03-24-2006
11:39 AM ET (US)
First the end of conventional modulation should come.
Really, more and more applications use spread spectrum, or CDMA(tm). This is _the_ modulation without interference. It's popularity comes out:
1. Existing interference avoidance.
2. Security.
3. Encryption available.
Broadcasting which doesn't requires subscription becomes obsolete, and so comes to digital technologies by need to encrypt content.
Field applications go digital by need to avoid interference ;-) and security.

So, conventional narrow-band modulation becomes narrower-used.
And IMHO in 5 or 10 years it will have no usage.

And then, when all transmission will be spread spectrum, spectrum will be open.

For Open Spectrum there must be no modulation but CDMA.
And Open Spectrum could be here only when all other modulations die.

(CDMA is trademark of Qualcomm)
Edited 03-24-2006 11:47 AM
53
Bazza
03-20-2006
04:23 PM ET (US)
I suggest you take a tranquiliser and have a nice lie down.
52
ranchar
01-22-2006
09:24 PM ET (US)
you want to quit smoking in just for a couple of days? or in just 7 days ? its amazing right? but its true, try our nosmoq product ...
you can call me at 63-32-2311892 for more information

visit my site: http://partnerclicks.net/click.php?APID=2&affID=0001017

mail me at dairycharz_84@yahoo.com
51
Michael H
10-07-2005
04:58 PM ET (US)
    It is simply amazing your lack of grasping of the fundamentals of radio systems. In a context of law, you would probably suggest that the Ten Commandments is all we need to govern the people. Try looking at the 900 Mhz free spectrum as a guideline to your proposal. Every manufacturer of wireless toys, cordless phones, garage door openers, and a host of other devices utilize this spectrum in such a manner that the FCC had to pass part 15 laws related to accepting harmful interference. ISM bands are next for this round of wireless interference battles. How long before 2.4 Ghz is a mess like 900Mhz? Another point that everyone must understand is radio(RF) is ANALOG!, there is no such creature as a digital RF waveform. You can digitally modulate a signal, digitally enhance a recieved signal(DSP), and even spread carriers with code, but in the end, a reciever must be able to detect the intelligence signal in this forest of interference. Just a couple of points to consider, my kudos to you for what I'd call a work of liberal science fiction. Flame on!
50
johnwcowanPerson was signed in when posted
10-05-2004
10:23 PM ET (US)
Another point not mentioned anywhere in the FAQ is radio astronomy. Senders in the sky are inherently dumb, and if we're going to do radio astronomy, we have to keep man-made sources out of those frequency bands.
49
SujathaPerson was signed in when posted
10-22-2003
01:23 AM ET (US)
Where are the UWB devices used currently? Is MIB avaiable for those devices?
48
bmoPerson was signed in when posted
10-21-2003
09:25 AM ET (US)
Question, ignoring digital and sat radio, and the political econmoy issues and the stakes etc., is it physically and currently possible to design a smart radio receiver that eliminates noise and interference on the FM band, say, to this degree: I can receive 104.5, 104.6, 104.7 - cleanly.

In other words can the current radio spectrum be sub-divided?

Second, Open Spectrum seems to be based on the end to end model of the Internet, still predominantly a wired world. There is still a core architecture to the web.
Never mind the metaphors, where is this Open Spectrum, this fourth dimension, to be found?

In the heretofore unliscensed realm?
Edited 10-21-2003 09:38 AM
47
Kyle WilsonPerson was signed in when posted
05-08-2003
11:10 AM ET (US)
I read the FAQ...I still don't see where 'open spectrum' deals with the spectral equivalent of 'SPAM'. It would seem that if I wanted to build a nice high powered spark-gap transmitter as a fun project that would be OK wihtin the proposal. For that matter, presumably any corporation that wanted to set up a wide-band high-power transmitter could do so without any recourse from those who were shut down by it. Ultimately the open spectrum stuff seems to result in some form of anarchy...at best you'll have to personally sue anyone who is locally causing problems. The proposal seems to assume that everyone will work together and that there will be no selfish folks out there. Seems to go against my understanding of human nature...If I find that a cheap high-powered transmitter on the public bands can setup a nice link to my friends to play Quake over, what prevents me from slamming large portions of the spectrum (possibly with out-of-band noise as well)?
46
jleaderPerson was signed in when posted
02-13-2003
02:17 PM ET (US)
aok, that's pretty much how I feel.

Unfortunately, the Open Spectrum folks don't seem to want to give any substantive answer to the question about interference, which really pushes my "stop treating me like an ignorant consumer" button.
45
aokPerson was signed in when posted
02-12-2003
10:44 PM ET (US)
jleader, I don't doubt the legitimacy of the NAB's comments. They reflect every viewpont of every incumbent that feels threatened by the technology that is rapidly evolving - and rightly so. "Service preservation" is a really a code word for "self preservation".

My point is let's get real. You can't go around saying "interference is a metaphor" when it is a cold reality. When you have zillions of dumb receivers like your average TV set picking up noise, that's real. How do Open Spectrum advocates intend to deal with it?

I'm also pointing out how much clout the NAB has. The fact that they could produce bogus CDs at the low-power FM Congressional hearings and still get the ridiculous "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act" passed demonstrates that.

We also have to remember that as hip as Michael Powell is to Open Spectrum, he may be around for only a short time. If Bush doesn't get re-elected, and that's certainly possible given the state of things, Powell goes poof. Hey, we may end up with a "Fritz Chip" chairman at the FCC.

I say grab all the unlicensed spectrum you can get and run with the ball. Technology will prevail. In the end the government will have no choice but to embrace an Open Spectrum policy, and I think it will happen sooner than we think.

I also think the Open Spectrum advocates have done an excellent job in planting ideas in the FCC's brain over the past year. My "criticism" is really devil's advocate.
^     All messages            45-60 of 60  29-44 >>

Print | RSS Views: 2918 (Unique: 1927 ) / Subscribers: 4 | What's this?