[rayiner]

The "virtually no threat of interference" claim needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Digital TV receivers are pretty dumb devices that aren't very good at rejecting interference.

I'm a big proponent of having minimum interference tolerance requirements for receivers, and there's work happening on that front: http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaper.... But we'd be talking about another round of updating every television in the nation...

[jessaustin]

The "virtually no threat of interference" claim needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Digital TV receivers are pretty dumb devices that aren't very good at rejecting interference.

When I enter "Los Angeles CA" on the FCC reception map site [0], there are 23 green/strong broadcasters listed. When I enter the location of my home, there are two. Are we to believe devices that can handle the presence of 22 "competing" signals in one situation will be completely overwhelmed by the presence of one or two extra signals in the other situation?

[0] http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/dtvmaps/

[rayiner]

Those 23 broadcasters are all on different channels. We're talking about devices that could potentially be on the same channel as an exiting TV station. This is not a trivial problem to solve, because you need very sensitive detectors on the "smart" device to ensure that it correctly detects when there is an active station on a given channel: http://www.sharedspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/2008-10_SSC....

One of the most complex aspects of doing this sort of thing is various permutations of the "hidden node" problem. Essentially, the problem is that a "smart" transmitter may not hear a dumb one, and use an in-use channel, interfering with a dumb receiver, which otherwise could hear the dumb transmitter. This tends to happen because geographic obstacles can cause individual nodes to have a different view of the spectrum environment.

[jessaustin]

Good point, but devices don't have to be able to sense broadcasts on a channel in order to avoid using that channel. Alternatively, the WISP WAP could just continuously broadcast (on known safe channels, as a part of the normal SSID etc. beacon) the list of currently safe channels, as configured and maintained by WISP personnel, and consumer devices could simply not transmit until they received the list.

Even if we were limited to listen-before-talk, the linked study recommended 10 W rather than 4 W, and that was in the urban context of Baltimore-DC, rather than out here in the hills where we rural people would like a choice in ISPs.