FCC Rejects Cheap/Fast Internet Device

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.'"

Interesting

[tttonyyy]

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]

BPL contrast.

[auroran]

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 to look after their corporate interests.

Re:Interference Prevention

[morgan_greywolf]

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 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.

Re:Interference Prevention

[drsquare]

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...

FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Ancient_Hacker]

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:Interference Prevention

[o'reor]

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 the biggest fear for those broadcasters is, as usual, money : if those bandwidths, which they are given free and exclusive access to by the FTC, were to be auctionned off to telco operators, they might eventually have to pay to remain on air.

Re:Interference Prevention

[imsabbel]

Er, $20 per month is the _lifeline_ offering?
Over here, 15 (less that 20$) is considered expensive for cable...

Re:Interference Prevention

[TubeSteak]

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:Interference Prevention

[Kjella]

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'll find there's a good mix of satellite or broadcast reievers. Once you start talking cabins, very few have satellites but many will put up a simple aerial antenna. By moving to digital, DTT will offer pretty much the same package as cable/satellite and would make it a lot more attractive again. Besides, using broadcast systems for pushing Internet, while using the networks for pushing IPTV seems like the least sane switch in history, at least if you're talking IPTV over wireless. Broadcast TV does a smashing job of sending the same content to everyone. Leave broadcast to be broadcast and start pulling cables so there'll be some decent internet connection instead.

Re:no problem

[kestasjk]

TV will be delivered over the internet in the next decade or two, so this problem will sort itself out in due course.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Bluesman]

"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.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Bluesman]

"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.

Problem is, they ARE evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC have proven time and time again that they are in the telcos' back pockets. Anybody can rig a test to fail, or deny spectrum access on a marginal reading of an oscilloscope. You'll never know the truth, because they'll change the truth to fit the outcome they want. It'll be he-said, she-said between the FCC testers and the product engineers. Besides, anyone in a marginal area for HD broadcast won't get a picture worth watching anyway. That's the big joke, signal loss is much worse than for regular TV. So who cares whether shitty reception degrades another 2%. It's a non issue.

The reason we'll never have decent wide-area Web access is that it hurts the telcos. Anything that hurts the telcos won't fly with the FCC. Just remember: what's good for Verizon and AT&T is good for America. Oh, I almost forgot: you mustn't say the Seven Unspeakable Words on TV. That's bad, too. Sure, you can show a close-up of a mad maniacal sadist chain-sawing the intestines out of a co-ed in slow motion, that's fine. But God forbid you utter a wordy-turd.