32 ms·
Well, I hope you'd agree that it's OK to leave the lawyers out of the discussion at this very early stage. (And technical workarounds might well exist: e.g. a T
by chockablock 13y ago
Well, I hope you'd agree that it's OK to leave the lawyers out of the discussion at this very early stage. (And technical workarounds might well exist: e.g. a TV channel's worth of spectrum in a major metro might be given over just to providing remote power to devices.)
A little relevant data from the paper: They do a somewhat crude experiment in the paper looking for corruption of TV signal, and find no effects except when the TV antenna is within a few inches of the device.
Which of course shows that these devices do indeed interfere with the normal reception of the signals they are parasitizing.
- StandardFuture 13y agoThe legal statement about the FCC clause is there to try to cover their asses on the research that went into this and to try to market the possibility of a wide adoption of these types of devices. I'm guessing they did not bother testing inside a screened room then if they believe that? Maybe? Maybe not? EDIT: I am guessing not. I imagine they used real-world backscatter to test this out.