Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What open frequencies? (Score 1) 187

(1) There's no space between TV channels. They all run directly next to one another, like books on a shelf.

That's not how frequency works, no. It's quantized arbitrarily into numbers, it isn't literally a block in space.

(2) The white space devices operate ON channel not between channels. So if there was an empty slot at 50, the device on connect to the internet ON channel 50.

If this is the case then that's an entirely different matter. The article doesn't mention that, but I don't have reason to argue if you've heard otherwise.

(3) The problem is that 50 is not open in the northeast. It's occupied. The entire TV band is full.

The article and materials I've read previously on the matter suggest that opening whitespace is regional, and for instance "channel 50" wouldn't be available for this use in areas where it was already in use for TV or something.

Comment Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics? (Score 1) 187

Cool, we can send those regs back in time, so the installed base of equipment will not be interfered with. Obvious and simple.

Both because you know ahead of the time that those rules will "interfere" with pre-existing equipment, and because it simply CANNOT BE ALLOWED that regulation changes affect anything already in place.

What was your point again?

Comment Re:What open frequencies? (Score 1) 187

I'm not nitpicking, I was clarifying where you were confused. Freeing up frequencies for Wifi does not have to fall within the constraint of "channels" because you won't be using a television to "tune in" to them. To reiterate, they're NOT the same thing. You don't need an "open channel" because there IS space between frequencies channels are assigned to. Similarly, there is space available in between "FM88" and "FM89" to use your own example.

Comment Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics? (Score 4, Insightful) 187

The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, but the FCC plans to vote next week on rules meant to resolve those issues.

Why can't those politicians vote on something more useful, like repealing the law of gravity, or laws of thermodynamics? I'm sure its likely to be equally successful.

What are you talking about? "Rules to resolve issues" doesn't sound anything like anyone implying magical physics-breaking measures, it sounds like regulations on exact frequency and signal-strength, which there would obviously be anyway. Sensationalist much?

Comment Re:I am not surprised. (Score 1) 1027

If we're picking our axioms, then why can't we choose to believe in a universe which operates on a universal set of rules unless its workings are altered on a case-by-case basis by some being existing outside of those rules? That would sort out the inconsistency - you can get general rules like gravity, electromagnetism etc. but also leave room for "acts of god" which may not be subject to such rules.

Sure go for it. The thing is, "acts of god" are explainable by the general rules already.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Working...