Slashdot Log In
FCC Will Test Internet Over TV Airwaves, Again
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jan 19, 2008 03:26 PM
from the automagic-for-the-people dept.
from the automagic-for-the-people dept.
Weather Storm writes "According to MSNBC.com, the FCC will try again to test prototypes on Jan. 24 for transmitting high-speed Internet service over unused television airwaves. The devices were developed by Microsoft and Motorola, among other corporate partners, and will be tested in laboratory and real-world conditions for three months. 'Last year, a high-technology coalition — which included Microsoft, Google Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel Corp. among others — submitted prototypes they said could transmit broadband Internet service over unlicensed and unused TV spectrum, known as "white spaces." Television broadcasters and the wireless microphone industry say such devices could interfere with programming. The Initial prototype testing failed last July because the devices did not reliably detect and avoid TV programming signals and could have caused interference. If the tests are successful this time and the devices are approved, the coalition plans to introduce commercial devices for sale after the digital television transition in February 2009.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: TV Airwaves To Deliver Internet? 115 comments
roscoetoon directs our attention to a proposal from an odd assortment of tech companies — Google, Microsoft, H-P, Intel, and others — to reuse TV wavelengths to deliver first-mile connectivity. The Washington Post article is subtitled "Cable, Phone Companies Watch Warily." As well they might. One of the big content companies that the incumbent duopolists propose to soak by dismantling network neutrality, in company with some powerful allies, is striking back at the heart of their business.
This discussion has been archived.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.
During peak times (Score:3, Funny)
Re:During peak times (Score:5, Funny)
Detection should be easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Detection should be easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Detection should be easy (Score:5, Funny)
Detection is a nightmare (Score:5, Informative)
Can you even imagine handling TV signal detection in an are like the Northeast Corridor? Anywhere from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME there are so friggin many channels that when you include out-of-DMA channels there simply is no real white space.
Understand that a channel in the eastern US can be reasonably expected to be detectable up to 100 miles away. For example, I live in central Pennsylvania, and even without atmospheric effects with a decent antenna I can get channels from eastern Ohio.
Point being that the device is going to pick up a lot of channels. Also, since it is presumed to be mobile, that device will have to shift channels.
Channel-shifting is where the real nightmare occurs, especially in cities. With path interference, you have total signal dead zones that are three feet away from strong signal. The device could pick a channel, celebrate and start transmitting right into a zone where there would be perfect TV reception and never be able to detect it because of a dead zone.
Trying to avoid this sort of interference in a practical application is impossible.
What, no revenue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mmm.. BBS over HAM (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember something a fear years ago about the switch to HDTV somehow opening up a range frequencies on the FM dial, and the FCC talking about maybe loosening restrictions on licensing for broadcast in the FM spectrum. I haven't re-heard any of that since.
I also remember, while I was studying the use of power lines as FM transmitters (apparently the signal is periodically flattened, though, by the transformers), the FCC mentioning something about using the power lines to double as internet. This was just after the DSL market leveled off, I remember. Anyways, there was a lot of talk about how to get that done, and special switches to go around transformers, or something. I haven't re-heard any of that, either.
I never liked DSL, btw. It seemed like the public was being duped into agreeing that they have no business using modems that fast without paying the phone companies for compensation. That's my impression based on the way the phone companies handled 14.4s and 28.8s. With 14.4s they started saying "you need to tell us if you are using your phone line for data communications; there's an extra fee." They tried to justify that by saying the fee paid for keeping the line more free of noise, which simply wasn't true. I remember a number of SysOps actually letting the phone companies know they were running BBSs off their low-calling-plan phone lines: they still had just as many checksum errors as they ever did, usually because they lived in the rural areas. Then when 28.8s came out, the phone companies started it all over again, except this time their gripe was that the higher throughput was a drain on the company's resources and they needed proper compensation, and threatened that if they found anybody was using their phone line for data without telling them, they would automatically flip you into the higher-paying mode. My impression then was that enough businesses and day-traders had told the company they were using their lines for data and ponied up the extra charge, but found that their signal wasn't any less noisy than usual, and got pissed and complained. Anyways, then DSL came out, and it was the same thing all over again, except that this time the phone companies had the jump on the technology and the right to use it on their lines. They were especially tight-fisted with who's allowed to so much as own a DSL modem, or if they couldn't manage to monopolize that market they were working out exchanges that required the company's leased and serialed modems. I have a question about that; when everybody's onto coaxial and the phone lines aren't being used for data any more, what will all of the "extra bandwidth" there be used for? Not voice: too many people are using cellphones for even their most casual home use, it's just more practical. What good will the phone lines be to us once they aren't getting used?
About the TV band again. I started reading up on it and learned that Japan had gone digital TV quite some time ago, but was still using the same airspace; they just managed to use compression to fit around two digital channels into the same bandwidth as one of our analogues. Why didn't America ever go into that same system, given how much Americans love both television and varieties? It seemed obvious to me, some time later, that twice as many channels are twice as hard to corner and monopolise. Some may say that deals couldn't be worked out so that manufacturers believed Americans would go out and buy replacement sets; but I still say any deal with a lucrative outcome eventually gets made by somebody, and it was simply obviously more lucrative to keep things tight-gripped rather than allow the market to be widened. We still have our "Big 3" today even though things have changed oh-so-much; when the hell are those disinfo mouthpieces going to fail and just go away?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to post on what you did, so let me paraphrase you, maybe that mod will change - and karma aside, you make good points, indirectly addressing other comments. So, here goes:
TV is mandated to go all-digi
Makes Perfect Sense (Score:4, Funny)
I think my head hurts. But I'm pretty sure we invented perpetual motion somewhere in there.
then the FCC would decide everything (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it will provide some Internet service where there isn't any now.
But yeah
Re:Mostly benefits rural areas (Score:5, Funny)
But will they run Hurd?
Re: (Score:2)
Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of companies in rural areas won't bother running what really amounts to the last mile of lines needed for DSL and cable. The reason is simple -- they will never recover the cost of running the line.
Presently, asynchronous satellite service is the only rural high speed internet available.
A ground-based synchronous wireless system circumvents some of that trouble, but the TV signals are sitting in the only bandwidth useful for reaching down into valleys. The truth is, VHF channels 7 and 8 are the plum spots. They have great range. They are at a low enough freqeuncy that they curve with the shape of the earth, while being high enough that they don't just suck in nearby electrical interference.
TV sits in the coveted spot.
Re:Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Funny)
Over here (in "Little Britain") a large 'rural area' probably equates to a small city park in N. America - so net accessibility in remote regions is not such a big issue: we simly don't tell them the internet exists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever looked at the TV reception issues in an area like Alaska? That's some fun.
There are parts of the rural mountainous US where you have to use a 10' satellite dish to get anything, and that's from local channels that are rebroadcast off of sat
Re:Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
Towns of 300 - 400 people is what we mostly aim at, and We offer decent speeds at least.
Anyways, I used to work for a satellite based ISP, and it just doesn't cut it quite the same.
I know we can do a 20 mile link with 20mbps throughput and recover the cost within 6 months if we have 20 customers.
The big companies aren't even worried about the customers or trying to recover money, they just don't care to take ANY time to spread broadband to rural areas. Its too much of a pain for them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you priced out just fixing the problem by buying a real connection?
T1 lines are damn cheap now - I frequently see prices around $400/month. Optical lines start in the low thousands. All it would take is a couple neighbors and setting up a WiFi or eve
Re:Who cares about tv (Score:4, Informative)
The best quality HD is all OTA
Re: (Score:3, Informative)