Why We Need Unlicensed White-Space Broadband Spectrum

pgoldtho writes "PC Mag has a story about why the 'white-space' spectrum that will be freed when TV broadcasts switch to digital should be available for unlicensed use. This would allow it to be used to deliver broadband connectivity in rural areas and create a 'third pipe' alternative to the cable/telco duopoly. The FCC is scheduled to vote on this November 4th. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has filed an emergency appeal to block this vote. If the NAB succeeds, the issue will be kicked into next year. Which would mean a new FCC, Congress, and Administration."

Useful frequency?

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful would these whitespace frequencies be at the home users end if this was used for two way internet? They aren't going to be running huge 50,000 watt towers like the TV broadcasters use. At say 5 watts (whatever/small) for the home connection "last mile" rig, will this work over long distances with hills and trees, or will it be line of sight and not much better than current wifi? I tried a service with motorola canopy wireless and it's still line of sight to a tower, any hills in the way and the signal dergrades fast to barely there or nothing.

What?

[rmadmin]

Seriously.. WHAT? We don't _NEED_ this to provide rural broadband. If 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.7Ghz, and 5.9ghz (are there more?) aren't enough, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! I'm providing rural broadband right now over both 900 and 2.4 to over 100 customers. The base package is 1Mbit/512K. Not bad if you live on a farm in Iowa if you ask me.

flatlands

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that work with the hills and trees in the way? I asked this up above, as I tried such a service and it didn't work, had to go back to dialup. Hills where I live on this farm, not flatlands like Iowa. Sorry but I don't know what frequency that motorola canopy based service was, I forget now, but I will assume it was one of those in your list, and the techs said no line of sight=SOL.

Re:Need clarification

[Mr. Slippery]

If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

And how well can we expect that to be enforced?

Right now, there are millions of in-car transmitters out there used for relaying satellite radio to car stereos [current.org]. They cause all sorts of interference with "authorized radio communications". But since they were only interfering with NPR broadcasts, rather than those of someone with money, rather than take serious action against XM the FCC agreed to let them send out cheap useless ferrite beads and leave it up to customers to install them.

License = limited monopoly

[unity100]

Licensing is not free market. licensing doesnt bolster competition. it creates a limited monopoly for those corporations who were able to buy those licenses.

imagine roads were privatized. imagine 10 companies bought roads, and used them as they wished, and charged anyone using them anything they wished.

do you think we would be in the level we are today as a civilization ?

we wouldnt.

there are some things, venues that need to be open to everyone, for anything, SO THAT competition, free market CAN happen.

FCC should vote totally in favor of this free spectrum. its necessary for betterment of mankind, leave aside internet access in a few locales.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

You know what? I hope they DO approve WSDs, because then I can listen to you (and other people) whining about how Ipods and other whitespace-enabled gadgets are causing interference with your Sci-Fi Channel and other cable channels. Some people don't learn except through direct experience.