| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Comments:
<0> I quote: "Don't forget, the original proposals from XM and Sirius called for something like 30 to 40 channels of CD-quality music. Certainly, 12.5 MHz would have been sufficient to handle that."
<1> and listen to 10 cormecial
<1> DOn't blame XM
<2> goppp, Sirius and XM are little guys?
<1> I bet if xm could get a high end audio all around
<1> and charge a bit more they would
<1> P_O compared to FM and clear channel sure
<2> I guess.
<3> OcDoc: plus it's a kit... you have to build it yourself
<1> it a freemarket the goverment don't involes it self
<4> hrm.. new west wing's topic is a "nuclear meltdown" .. god.. such crap
<1> in the direction of a company
<5> Ya know
<6> panini: I thought you were talking about buying a kit
<5> 12.5 mhz isn't bad.
<6> panini: sorry
<7> lol
<4> I dont understand why we dont convert completely to pebble bed reactors.. and end this nuclear meltdown myth once and for all.
<1> so if Xm wanted better quality and had a means of doing so then goverment has no right to stop them
<2> goppp, without any spectrum allocation though, we'd have people ****ing over everything.
<1> and even if clear channel would cry
<5> @ 2 Ghz, that's over 4gbps of usable bandwidth, under lab conditions.
<8> antifed: this is their last season guess they are trying to make some kind of statement
<5> goppp: Except in doing it, they'd **** up some other service.
<1> Astrodog that what xm is asking the fcc for
<1> it a freemarket
<5> No, it isn't.
<6> panini: it's not really ... you only have to do X% to qualify under the FAA regs
<6> panini: they'll build if for you and all you have to do is install the engine
<1> in a freemarket sure
<5> With RF, it doesn't work, unless its regulated.
<0> Astrodog: under real world conditions, XM and sirius get a usable 4mbps out of their respective 12.5mhz slices
<2> If we were to remove the FCC and make it totally freemarket, no one would compete cause the medium would be squashed.
<1> e-Hernick and xm is lobbying for 2ghz
<1> e-Hernick that is far more bandwith then they need
<5> No...
<1> thus if they grow, and if fcc get out of thier face
<5> They're lobbying for more bandwidth, within the 2 Ghz range.
<1> and congress
<5> Not for 2 Ghz of bandwidth.
<9> what does this mean? * [10053] Software caused connection abort
<1> AsE sure
<1> Astrodog sure
<5> goppp: You CANNOT unregulate RF stuff.
<1> and if congress stop kissing up the riaa
<5> Because if you do, it stops working, when everyone trips over each oither.
<2> OcDox, it's usually when your computer figures out your router has gone down
<2> at least when I see that message.
<10> IMHO: any increase in bandwidth ought to be mandated to only be used to increase broadcast signal quality, not number of hcannels
<1> we can have better dar players from XM
<9> PO: I don't have a router
<2> OcDox, or internet connection in general.
<1> Lupine yepe, sure
<5> Doc: Your internet connection was interrupted momentairily.
<9> oh
<1> Lupine and I would love to see far more HD channels
<1> for music like jazz and cl***ical
<9> those wacky construction guys again, eh?
<1> I love newage and jazz
<1> thanks to Xm I listen to great music, and if they get better quality on those station I will be happy
<9> the country channel on xx is pretty good
<2> How much does XM/Sirius cost?
<1> I am happy with 200 station
<1> and 150 station of music
<5> goppp: Do you understand why you can't do free market RF stuff?
<5> P_O: Like 10-20 a month.
<1> Astrodog I see your point
<2> Eh, that's decent.
<0> IMHO: XM and Sirius have both proven themselves to be deceitful when it comes to quality. When they applied for their spectrum, they claimed that they would offer half as many channels as they do now. Each channel would obviously have been of far greater quality. If they're granted more spectrum, they won't raise quality - only the number of channels.
<1> Astrodog 12 not 20
<5> goppp: ITs not "My Point".
<1> Astrodog and no cormecial
<1> Astrodog I law it law of physic
<5> Its required by how the media works.
<1> sure it the law of physic
<2> e-Hernick, people understand number of channels in an advertising sense before quality.
<5> goppp: Unregulated RF becomes a "war of wattage", essentally.
<9> redfish can't use knives ... they have no hands
<2> Quality is more, uh, qualitative a measurement.
<1> k good point
<1> it true
<1> but I will take content
<4> P_O: most people can't judge quality beyond, better then FM. :)
<1> over quality
<1> and the quality in my car it great
<5> goppp: There are 4 real sets of frequency that are unregulated, and they aren't worth a damn.
<4> P_O: so they get just enough quality to be easily better then FM, then shoot for quantity.
<2> antifed, well I'm with them.
<1> antifed my point is that
<11> I don't know... ISM band gives us 802.11x
<5> 47 MHz, 900 Mhz, and 2.6 Ghz. None of them are worth anything for transmitting data and whatnot.
<2> I have missed the fact that I have 64kbps mp3s before.
<0> I've seen more innovation in the unregulated bands, especially 2.4Ghz, than anywhere else
<1> get better quality cd quality bandwith
<1> for each channel
<2> So my ears obviously don't detect quality that well either.
<1> and even bandwith to support 400 channel max
<11> I find 802.11 to be very useful.
<0> 5.8 is starting to gain some ground too
<1> that all xm needs
<12> goppp: technology is highly overrated
<5> e-Hern: None of those 3 are worth anything for transmitting data
<1> xm needs to get bandwith to support both 400 channels max and cd quality or such
<11> 27MHz and 2.4GHz, plus the 5.8GHz
<13> talking on irc #politics is underrated
<12> goppp: you'd be happier as an amish farmer
<5> And in 4 years, 5.8 will be in the same boat.
<1> jhicks and ways my audio quality from XM is better
<1> then fm
<1> in my car
<5> Yaak: 2.4 is regulated.
<9> if the music is digitally encoded, they ARE transmitting data
<5> Just not licenced.
<12> goppp: with one of those cool amish hats even
<5> You cannot exceed 1W transmission power.
<11> ALL specturm is regulated, some is unlicensed.
<1> OcDox acc plus
<12> Astrodog: sure you can
<5> jhicks: Not without getting a licence.
<11> 2.4GHz is an ISM band that allows unlicensed operation, such as 802.11.
<9> gopp: say wht?
<5> Yaak: Up to 1W, yeah.
<12> Astrodog: bah, pirates frequently run higher
<5> Past that, its licenced.
<1> OcDox aac codec plus
<1> is what xm uses
<9> gopp: is it digital or not?
<12> "licensing of natural phenomena"
<12> tyranny!
<1> OcDox yes
<1> computer file
<5> jhicks: You pretty much have to licence/regulate RF stuff.
<5> Otherwise, the media is useless.
<12> Astrodog
<11> Astrodog: As far as I know, 2.4GHz is only licensed to Radio Amateurs.
<9> gopp: then they are transmitting data on those frequencies
<1> yepe
<2> OldSchoo
<12> ALL media is useless, especially Clear Channel
<5> Yaak: Past 1W, you cannot run on 2.4 with data without a licence.
<1> Astrodog sorry but I am
<9> gopp: someone said those frequencies are useless for transmitting data
<1> not a hardware geek like you
<5> jhicks: RF becomes useless as a transmission media.
<12> It's done all the time
<13> jacob q. hicks
<12> Astrodog: It's already useless
<1> OcDox could be that why xm needs more bandwith for better quality
<5> jhicks: Significantly more useless.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
POIG.OB
cycclone
church as a political player
#bsd
#computers
cumfiesta passdump
#politics
level=album
#windows
#bsd
|
|