Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FCC Rejects Cheap/Fast Internet Device

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 10, 2007 07:43 AM
from the recycling-the-packets dept.
The Internet United States Wireless Networking Hardware
Tech.Luver writes "ABC News reports that a group of technology companies including Google, Microsoft, and Dell, have failed to convince the Federal Communications Commission of the utility of high-speed internet access via television airwaves. The FCC concluded the potential to disrupt consumer image quality was too high, in a statement released Wednesday. 'The technology companies say the unlicensed and unused TV airwaves, also known as "white spaces," would make Internet service accessible and affordable, especially in rural areas and also spur innovation. However, TV broadcasters oppose usage of white spaces because they fear the device will cause interference with television programming and could cause problems with a federally mandated transition from analog to digital signals in February 2009.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: FCC says 'no' to cheap rural Internet by Tech.Luver (1130091)
[+] Mobile: Microsoft Questions FCC's 'White Spaces' Decision 142 comments
narramissic writes "Late last month a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition was rejected by the FCC because it interfered with cable channels. Microsoft, though, claims that the device was malfunctioning when the FCC tested it. From the article: 'In a letter to the FCC Monday, Microsoft said the scanner in one of two prototypes was damaged and "operated at a severely degraded level. The damaged scanner accounted for the entire discrepancy between the Microsoft and the FCC bench test data," said Ed Thomas, a consultant for the White Spaces Coalition and a former chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FCC Rejects Cheap/Fast Internet Device 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tttonyyy (726776) on Friday August 10 2007, @07:48AM (#20181379) Homepage Journal
    Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6938941.stm [bbc.co.uk]
    • I'm guessing you need a phone-line sos yer requests can be transmitted?

      • Re:The ol' Upstream Question. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Intron (870560) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:49AM (#20182039)
        The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. The rate increase makes this pretty high cost/bit. Secure TCP (letter rate) is 0.41/packet and insecure UDP (postcard) is 0.26/packet.

        • Re:The ol' Upstream Question. (Score:4, Funny)

          by MrNaz (730548) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:54AM (#20182117) Homepage
          When you first said "USPS" I thought "nah, he couldn't be talking about the postal service" but then you said "letter rate", and now I just have to say that I don't fancy the idea of printing all my ACK packets and sending them back. What happened to the paperless office? Obviously it's only paperless if you're using UDP!
          • I'm commenting on your reply, but you'll have to wait for about a day- please read it, stamps are expensive!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by radl33t (900691)
      This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?

      • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @08:04AM (#20181535)
        This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it?

        Let's brush up those reading comprehension skills, shall we? The second paragraph from the aforementioned ABC article: The Federal Communications Commission on July 31 said the devices submitted by the technology coalition could not reliably detect unused TV spectrum, and could also cause interference.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by tttonyyy (726776)
          Exactly. It doesn't mean that this device will never see the light of day, only that more development is needed to bring it up to the standard where it'll pass.

  • no problem (Score:4, Funny)

    by mrjb (547783) on Friday August 10 2007, @07:49AM (#20181383)
    Ignorant as I am, I'd say all they need to do is to just up the frequency until outside TV spectrum. As an added bonus, all you'd have to do to cook your food would be to place it near your wireless router.

    • Re:no problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Phreakiture (547094) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:23AM (#20181729) Homepage

      Ignorant as I am, I'd say all they need to do is to just up the frequency until outside TV spectrum. As an added bonus, all you'd have to do to cook your food would be to place it near your wireless router.

      Yes, that is ignorant.

      If you up the frequency until out of the first block of TV channels (2-4), you interfere with wireless hearing aids.

      If you up it out of the second block (5-6), you interfere with FM radio.

      If you up it out of the third block (7-13), you interfere with the military.

      If you up it out of the last block (14-69), you interfere with cell phones.

      Of course they are dropping channels 60-69 from the dial. This is the "700 MHz" band we have heard so much about lately.

      The trouble is that while you could probably use the 700MHz band for this, it performs poorly in hilly, rural areas. VHF frequencies (like those around channels 7-13, and especially around 2-6) perform really well in such areas.

      • OK! So if upping frequency doesn't work, why don't they just lower the wavelength?

        Damn you knowledgeable types... Always finding fault in EVERYTHING. I bet you were standing right next to Orville whispering "It's gonna crash..ssss.." right in his ear.

        Freaking luddites...

        Cheers!
        --
        Vig
  • And we all know that that "February 2009" deadline is actually going to be upheld.
    • The February 2009 deadline has been given and it is repeatedly cited that it will be upheld. Do note that the Feb. 2009 digital transition deadline does not apply to all stations.
      • I'm hoping it will be upheld. I'm tired of holding out on getting a High-Def so I can get my government subsides (SP?) for the two analog TVs that I have.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by MrNaz (730548)
          As a non-US citizen, I too hope your government subsides.
          (Not a spelling Nazi, just poking you coz you pointed it out :P )
    • *COUGH*BULLSHIT*COUGH*
  • It's interesting to see that th FCC is taking the stance that they are with this one.
    They're pushing ahead w/ the BPL approvals despite the known and measured interference that the ARRL has presented to them. (They've shown that it's not just the hams that are effected too.) Yet they are concerned about interference on a new system before it's even tested because of the possibility of interference.

    It's sounding like the power companies using BPL and media companies may have purchased a few FCC employees t
  • It is a case of Big Money vs. Big Money because both sides have huge amount of money to throw into it they figure regecting change will be the easist choice.

  • Need to protect the incumbent telco's (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @08:07AM (#20181575)
    -- This is just like broadband over powerline (BPL). The FCC makes sure the requirements are inadequate, such that there is guaranteed interference with somebody (with Congressional influence). The FCC then quashes it, in order to help it's telco friends.
    -- BPL still exists for the moment, as, there is not enough influential pain being relayed to Congress yet. Don't worry, BPL will be quashed.
    -- Gotta protect the telco's, so that the commissioners have lucrative future position and employment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Skapare (16644)

      BPL will, and should, be quashed because it is a flawed technology from the outset. It inherintly leaks to the air, making it both subject to RF interference and a source of RF interference. BPL is also very bandwidth limited with no growth potential (because the faster it has to go, the higher the frequencies it needs to use, and the more it will interfere because higher frequencies will leak even more from power lines).

      Power companies should, instead, install fiber over their poles, or in the ground al

  • In fairness... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:11AM (#20181603)
    I can see the TV people's point. It's not like those frequencies are a big truck you can just dump stuff on.

  • FCC happens to be right on this one... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:18AM (#20181677)
    Putting wireless internet on the freed-up TV channels is a particularly poor use of the spectrum. Each TV channel is only about 6 MHz wide (4.5 plus some guard space). That would accomodate maybe 50 million bits per second of service, across the propagation range of VHF and UHF, which depending on power and weather, can range from a few hundred meters to several hundred miles. If you use a few hundred watts you could cover a few square miles, but so can the current Wifi channels. Covering a large rural are is impractical as you'd need many watts of power transmitted at the user's end, and only a limited number of users could be handled.

    • Re:FCC happens to be right on this one... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bluesman (104513) on Friday August 10 2007, @12:23PM (#20185123) Homepage
      "Covering a large rural are is impractical as you'd need many watts of power transmitted at the user's end, and only a limited number of users could be handled."

      Huh? How big of an area are you talking about? Cell phones don't transmit with many watts of power, and they still work in rural areas.

      The UHF TV stations are within 100MHz of commonly used cell phone frequency ranges, so the propagation, antenna length, and power requirements would be very similar.

      Being that the user would be based at home, and not limited by the size of a mobile phone and battery, there would be more than enough power.

  • Whitespace is fitting (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:24AM (#20181745) Homepage
    Whatpornifpornallpornwhitespaceporninporncommentsp ornwaspornusedpornlikepornthis ?

  • White Space (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darth Cider (320236) on Friday August 10 2007, @10:26AM (#20183329)
    Check out how much TV spectrum goes unused across the U.S. [freepress.net], and not just in rural areas. Unbelievable waste. Does this look like a free-market allocation of resources? Does the FCC realize it is making earnest citizens literally sick with disappointment? How many people would welcome a movement to just seize the airwaves, creating wireless ISPs that don't ask for permission to broadcast? Bring on the interference?

    • Does the FCC realize it is making earnest citizens literally sick with disappointment?
      A medical breakthrough! I'm really impressed. The FCC is spreading illness throughout the country and using "disappointment" as the disease carrier.

      I just hope that my ex-girlfriend doesn't find out about this, or I'll be a goner.

  • The Real Problem with Whitespace Devices (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSync (5291) * on Friday August 10 2007, @10:54AM (#20183757) Homepage Journal
    The real problem with "whitespace" devices is intermodulation interference. Just because there isn't a signal in a "whitespace" doesn't mean that if you transmit there that your signal won't mix with other signals in receivers to create intermodulation noise.

    Unlicensed signals on first adjacent channels next to DTV signals may generate third-order intermodulation product noise in DTV receivers.

    There is nothing wrong with trying to set up "intelligent radio" unlicensed systems in their own band, but putting them adjacent to DTV channels is not a good idea.

    More info:
    http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.1598.ht ml [tvtechnology.com]
    http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.2005.ht ml [tvtechnology.com]
  • Quote [internetnews.com]: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to let wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) to operate in unused spectrum space currently occupied by TV broadcasters. The proposal is aimed at giving consumers an alternative to cable and telecom broadband providers."

    ???

    CC.

    • It is being blocked for interference prevention, not because broadcasters fear it, but because it could not reliably detect unused TV spectrum, and could also cause interference..

      Heck, many TVs can't reliably detect unused TV spectrum as can be witnessed by tuning your TV into the airwaves (instead of your cable/satellite) and watching the screen turn blue on stations that come in fine, but have a slightly weak signal. (like say, Windsor, Ontario's Channel 9 in Detroit).

      Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV

      • Re:Interference Prevention (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday August 10 2007, @08:07AM (#20181571)
        Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

        I think this is the first time I've seen someone on slashdot advocating the elimination of the FREE option and requiring people to pay money for something.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drsquare (530038)
        I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

        Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies...

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TubeSteak (669689)

          I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

          Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies...
          Too many people take for granted the $40~$50 per month they spend on their cable/sat TV bill.

          Even people in serious debt will keep paying for their Cable/sat TV (& cell phone( until the very end.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Valdrax (32670)
          I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

          You're using the TV version of free dial-up access if you're relying on terrestrial TV signals for entertainment. If you had access to wireless, high-speed internet, you could watch streaming video instead. I should even have to into the difference in choices of entertainment available between the two. Plus, most UHF stations in the upper numbers are really low-quality programming.

          B

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kjella (173770)
        Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

        Well, since it seems completely impossible to find any market for figures for the US, I'll just talk from my experiences from Norway. How you get TV is very dependent on where you live, if you live somewhere central you typically have cable and it seems like "everyone else" does too. Go a little bit further out and you'l

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by porcupine8 (816071)
        Me. I don't have $50/month lying around to pay for 8 channels I'd watch and 100+ I wouldn't. I'll get cable as soon as they offer an a la carte version for under $25/month. Until then, Netflix meets my non-broadcast needs. Sure, I can get "basic cable" for $25, but it includes nothing that's not broadcast, news, or shopping - so I'd be paying for about twenty channels I wouldn't watch, and a dozen I can get with my antenna. Woo!!
        • That's a feature of the television/tuning device so that people don't have to watch/hear static. I've had a few VCRs and whatnot where you could disable the blue screen and watch/listen to as much static as you wanted.

        • Re:Interference Prevention (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Puff of Logic (895805) on Friday August 10 2007, @10:54AM (#20183763)

          Here's an idea for the cable broadcasters ... drop the rates or give me the option to select only the channels (a per-channel fee, if you will) I want to watch instead of lumping me into a "plan" that gives me a massive subset of them.
          I've been campaigning for this for years. Ideally, I'd like to see a true a la carte system that let me pick as many or as few channels as I liked, but I'd accept a 5, 10 or 15 channel plan too. Some have argued that indie or less well-known channels would suffer, but I don't see it as my responsibility to subsidise them. Alternatively, I'd even go for a "geek" channel package (that would obviously need a more marketable name) that contained the usual suspects beloved by the tech/history/science/history watchers. Until this happens, however, I refuse to pay a hefty cable bill for a channel line-up that consists of 90% channels that I have no interest in and are stuffed with commercials.

          In a perfect world, there'd be pure digital distribution of television series and movies. All content would be streamed on-demand in a high-quality format, with a basic fee covering access to the network and perhaps a low-cost fee per hour of watching (like $.25 per hour) with no interstitial commercial "messages". I'd be very happy with that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Courageous (228506)
            The a la carte system will eventually happen, just not yet. Once all the broadband connections going into enough homes are sufficient to handle the bandwidth (and likewise the core infrastructure along with it), what you'll see is middlemen (like cable companies) getting eliminated. End users will buy their products directly from the manufacturer, so to speak. I'm just waiting for the day where I can buy CNN, the History Channel, SCI-FI, and, um, the Hustler Channel or something. And that's all. Won't be lo

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by o'reor (581921)
      As a former DVB engineer, having studied the terrestrial standards for digital broadcasting, I can tell you that this fear of interference is total bullshit. The level of signal redundancy (using Viterbi encoding) combined with the forward error correction (FEC) mechanisms introduced in the signal, practically reduce the risk of interference to none.

      COFDM, the modulation used in Europe, may be more robust in that area than 8VSB used in the US, still I don't believe it would be a serious concern.

      I think t

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tonsofpcs (687961)
        I don't think DVB is the worry. Analog interference is, and with the power required, even DVB can be overpowered and interfered with.

      • Re:Interference Prevention (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Bluesman (104513) on Friday August 10 2007, @12:32PM (#20185269) Homepage
        "The level of signal redundancy (using Viterbi encoding) combined with the forward error correction (FEC) mechanisms introduced in the signal, practically reduce the risk of interference to none."

        I'm sorry, but that's just misleading.

        In any channel transmitting digital data, you have a certain bit error rate (BER). Using error correction techniques, you can improve the performance of the channel such that the BER is equivalent to that of a channel with much less noise, or much higher transmit power, or much higher antenna gain. Error correction provides gains that you can measure in decibels, just like an increase in transmit power would.

        But a dB loss is a dB loss, it doesn't matter if it's due to weather, interference, etc. If interference causes a dB loss over and above what the channel was designed for, you lose more bits than expected, and quality degrades.

    • Why can't these bozos come up with One Good Standard (tm), implement it and go with it?
      Because as technology advances, we come up with better and better ways to do stuff. Each standard gets faster and faster, and cheaper and cheaper. You might as well ask 'why can't these bozos come up with One Good CPU design, implement it and go with it?', it's about the same thing.
    • But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now??

      I've ditched the cable/satellite in favor of terrestrial HDTV. You'd be surprised with the amount of content that you can acquire through time shifting and a good antenna [antennasdirect.com] (especially if you like PBS stuff like Nova).

      Cable/Satellite TV's days are numbered with solid internet broadcasting.

    • But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now??
      Oh, and sattelites, of course!

      Sure, they are being relayed over cable and satellite. But the quality over the air is actually better with the switch to digital. Many cable and satellite providers are either still carrying many stations only in analog, or are overcompressing the picture data. For stations that have gone to their full digital power, over the air reception is actually better than it was for analog.

      Also, the FCC has been holding off process

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      Unfortunately the affiliate system in the U.S. has been holding back the technological infrastructure for some time in this regard and many others. The affiliates have a vested interest in maintaining the old structure of pre-cable American television and so they fight innovation too-and-nail. They fought cable when it came in. They fought to get a law passed banning satellites from carrying major networks if they weren't through the local affiliate in the area. They fought the long-overdue HDTV switch. And

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bluesman (104513)
      "Scrap the FCC. Use frequency hopping spread-spectrum devices to avoid interference."

      You do realize that this would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually working, right?

      If there are no restrictions on who can transmit what, whoever transmits the strongest signal wins. It's not going to be you.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.