Why We Need Unlicensed White-Space Broadband Spectrum 179
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."
Damn Reds. (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if it stands that the space will not be licensed for some other commercial use, the existing bandwidth owners will lobby against it ever being given back to the public, because there is money to be made fencing people in to their existing ownership of the spectrum.
The very idea that the electromagnetic spectrum can be fenced off strikes me as ridiculous. Don't get me wrong - I'm aware of why it needs to be done. But it seems like such a short jump from there to Coca Cola declaring all rights over 'red'.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I sent a comment to the FCC about this November 4 hearing, and in short I said this: "My channel count will drop from 15 to just 3 channels, if you allow whitespace devices to broadcast on the television band." If my neighbor flips-on her whitespace-enabled Ipod next year, its broadcasts will block any television station further away that 25 miles. So instead of watching Baltimore, Philly, or Harrisburg television like I normally do, I will be limited to just the local DTV stations in little p
Re: (Score:2)
MORE FROM ARS TECHNICA:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-white-space-battle-gets-dirty-as-the-mud-flies.html [arstechnica.com]
"The broadcasters contend that adjacent channel interference would be significant even at the 40 mW level proposed by Kevin Martin. In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 40 feet or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace devic
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's good to hear that the FCC is so attuned to the problems of RFI and TVI. Otherwise I'd be really worried about the practice in the Deep South where right-wing broadcasters manage to license frequencies adjacent to NPR stations, and effectively drown them off the air. Since the FCC is so concerned, of course they're going to address this.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. I heard about this more than 6 months ago - on NPR.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If you got your pre-recorded entertainment off of the internet instead of waiting for a broadcaster to send it out, it wouldn't matter how few channels you got.
>>>
Over-the-air television provides a 20 megabit/second connection. Point me to an internet company that provides that same service for free or almost-free.
That's right; it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
UPS already has Dibs on "Brown"
They can expect a lawsuit from south african spaceman dude any day now..
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Too late. In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. [ladas.com], SCOTUS held that, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark." They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.
But of course, the issues are very different. Even at the physical level - most matter is opaque to the visible spectrum but
Re: (Score:2)
They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.
So the Packers pay Qualitex a royalty or somethin' to use the colors?
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark rights aren't necessarily all-or-nothing in that way. In the Qualitex decision, the Court held that a color could be protected by trademark rights if it was used to identify a specific brand of a particular product. Since the Packers aren't trying to sell green-gold dry cleaning press pads, it seems unlikely that Qualitex's trademark would apply.
Similarly, there's nothing that prevents me from selling brown laptops (except g
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like the way the Beatles/Apple Records and Apple both own the "Apple" trademark, because the former does music and the latter does computers.... Oops!
How did that ever turn out, anyway? Did Apple Records reopen their suit, once the iPod and iTunes hit the market?
Re: (Score:2)
They settled. Apple Computer now owns the Apple Corps trademark but licenses it back to Apple Corps.
They probably figured it was easier to let Apple Computer fund the lawyers to defend the trademark, rather than drain their money endlessly suing Apple Computers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part (as mentioned in TFA): the spectrum (like many other things) is AUCTIONED. The rights are only going to end up in the hands of already-rich corporations who seek nothing but profit. No one will ever win.
Yes, the spectrum does need to be regulated - not by money - but by how it will benefit the people that use it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Not quite.
Money drives the invisible hand, and that invisible hand does a better job of improving society than any philanthropy.
Exhibit #1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Useful frequency? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Running at less than half the frequency of WiFi, it will do considerably better at going through obstacles, but it's not LF, it's not going to travel hundreds of miles and skip of the ionosphere... You're ALWAYS going to be constrained by line of sight and the curvature of the earth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, not correct at all.
Whether it will work or not depends on how many degrees of curvature the signal has to disperse across to go "around" the hill in question.
The higher the frequency, the less the signal will "curve" around such obstacles. With UHF being less than half the frequency of WiFi, yo
Re: (Score:2)
If you have two transceivers at opposite sides of the base of a mountain, no radio frequency is ever going to allow them to communicate directly (well, VLF will, but that's impractically slow, so let's ignore it for simplicity sake).
I think you forgot to consider NVIS [wikipedia.org] (near-vertical-incidence skywave) propagation.
From Wikipedia:
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
No, I didn't. I'm simply not pedantic enough to mention every single irrelevant detail about a topic.
"Skip" of any kind is not relevant to the topic, nor practical in such scenario. You might also note I did say "directly," whereas a satellite, skywave skip, RF signal reflector, repeater, or many other devices would also work, but none of which would answer the question.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A 100 milliwatt WSD will travel about four football fields distance. If the WSD is broadcasting on VHF (channels 2-13), it won't be blocked by trees, but if it's broadcasting on UHF (channels 14-51), then trees will block the signal quite easily.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue of power, distance and line-of-sight are all things that are actually big parts of the debate on this.
For instance, if your internet device is in a valley between two hills, and a TV tower is broadcasting on one hill, with a tv viewer on the other, your device may not be able to determine that they're broadcasting there.
The net result is crap internet for you and you've annihilated the TV signal for the person viewing it on the other side of the valley.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and there's a good chance you'll knock out the unlicensed wireless microphone system in the church up the street.
Re: (Score:2)
The lower frequency will give you a much better chance than current WiFi frequencies, but it will be fairly short range (last mile, not across the state). A good directional antenna will be your friend for any fixed installation. Mobile may not work all that well. Unlike current frequencies, a wet leaf won't ruin your day. A few hills will be fine, but large granite faces will be a problem still.
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
flatlands (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
i worked with a wISP for a while. 700mhz and 900mhz equipment can handle a surprising amount of foliage and still provide a decent connection.
however, they wont shoot straight through trees, but if foliage is in some of the lower part of the trannsmission field (called a fresnel zone) then the signal is passable.
as you get to higher frequencies, objects are more of a problem (at least as far as the canopy stuff goes). hills....well hills you cant do dick about. theyre very thick and dense, unlike scattered
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So far all practical purposes the only possibility for me getting any sort of broadband
Why don't you call your local phone company and inquire if you can upgrade your line to DSL? They might have some requirement such as, "We need at least 10 subscribers to make it work," at which point you can round-up your neighbors and get them all to agree to join DSL. All the telephone lines are already installed; all you need is the company to install a DSLAM at the central switching office, and you're
Re: (Score:2)
>>>when I could get DSL, he said "never, unless the government forces us to"
Then that's what needs to happen. The government initiated the "rural access fee" in order to force phone companies to serve rural residents, and now it's time for that fee to be used to force the Telcos to upgrade the local switching stations with DSL capability.
Upgrading already-installed telephone wire is the cheapest, quickest way to provide broadband nationwide. In the meantime, may I suggest Netscape ISP? They use
Re: (Score:2)
Why answer with a cogent, technical solution when a simple insult will do:
FLATLANDER!
Re: (Score:2)
The base package is 1Mbit/512K. Not bad if you live on a farm in Iowa if you ask me.
Bad if you ask anyone living somewhere in Sweden, say Götebarrrrr or Karrrrrlskrona... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a viable plan in Iowa, or even in Phoenix where I live (unless you live near Camelback Mountain...).
But try that plan in rural Maine, my hometown for instance. Not working. 900MHz is a struggle, and anything above 1.5G is a waste of time for rural distances. Just not happening.
This is the problem with metro wireless solutions. Real rural areas are largely hilly, forested, and unfriendly to microwave spectrum. Get down a little bit, even to 700MHz, and it all becomes so much easier. Oh, and one
And 700bn reasons why you won't get (Score:2)
The current deficit and the $700bn bailout sort of ensures that this will be sold off to get ANY sort of money back into the central pot.
Freeness? (Score:2, Insightful)
When will America get it? Some things, like education, healthcare/health insurance, 911 (police, fire department, ambulance), and the internet should be offered to everyone. They're not assets, they're life essentials. Right now, they're only guaranteed to two of those and one of them (education) is fading fast.
There was once a time when the fire department was a private service - imagine what life would be like if they still had to pay for that (yes, I know we pay taxes anyways, but it's still granted fo
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% correct. Everybody has a right to healthcare.
Everybody has a right to walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm sick," and expect the doctor to try to heal them.
What they do NOT have a right to do is take the bill and hand-it-off to their neighbors & force the neighbors to pay the bill. That's called theft. It's YOUR bill; YOU pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone in the world agrees with that till they get sick.
Till they get sick and look at their bill and realize they are paying $50 for an aspirin pill.
Til
Re: (Score:2)
>>>And everyone in the world agrees with that till they get sick.
Even if I was laying on my deathbed, I would NOT steal money from my neighbor. I'm going to die anyway, whether it's now at age 60, or later at age 70. The end point (coffin) is not changing and there's no point trying to fight the inevitable destination.
But if I steal money from my neighbor, and force them to pay my doctor's bill, well, that could have dramatic consequences. Like eternal damnation.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Get your religion's nose out of my wallet
Why? YOU insist upon shoving your communist/socialist morality down everybody's throat, forcing them to pay taxes towards objectionable things (like giving free healthcare to smokers, or free abortions to kill human fetuses).
It's funny how you object to religion, and then you turn-around and try to shove YOUR morality down everybody's throats. Hypocrite much? You're no better than the Popes.
>>>I think the intent here is to stop the medical mon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised what even the "insured" are expected to pay when it comes to life altering accidents or illness. I've seen this occur to people three times in my life and it is NEVER pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
True however they will happily bankrupt the estate if they can. Parents often wish to pass on wealth to their children, an expensive stay in the hospital or an extended care facility can completely wipe out even the prosperous. Even keeping a family member in your home with some nursing assistance is shockingly expensive if it lasts for very long. I can completely understand why someone might take their own life when they have realized what their care will cost.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>you imply that the health care provided does not need to be paid for
Did you even bother to read my WHOLE post? It's clear you did not. Let me quote the relevant portion: "What they do NOT have a right to do is take the bill and hand-it-off to their neighbors & force the neighbors to pay the bill. That's called theft. It's YOUR bill; YOU pay for it."
Just the same as buying a car. You have a right to buy a Lexus; you don't have the right to make your neighbors cover the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez. Picky-picky.
All I meant is that you have a Right to Free Speech, and that you can direct your speech at a doctor, and request that he heal your sick body. That's it. (And I'm sure you knew perfectly well that's what I meant, even if I didn't run my language past a lawyer prior to posting.)
What you do NOT have a right to do is take you Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft. (It's also partial enslavement.)
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm piling on, and I deserve a redundant mod if I get it, but I have to agree that he is not being remotely picky. You have twice rephrased your statement in ways that dramatically change its meaning.
* Everyone has a right to health care.
* Everyone has the right to purchase health care.
* Everyone has the right to request that someone allow them to purchase health care.
If you can't see how different those three things are, your brain is defective. And if you can, and want to be understood, then fo
Re: (Score:2)
I still maintain everyone has a right to healthcare, so long as they have the money to pay for it. They have the right to buy a Porsche too, or a 1 Gigabit internet line, or a small mansion..... so long as they have the money.
If they don't have the money (shrug) too bad. You don't get any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
The reason I say you have "a 'right' to healthcare if you pay the doctor money", is because I don't think a doctor should be allowed to say "no". If said doctor refuses to take your money and shows you the door, then I think he should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the most-persuasive technique is to pretend to agree with someone even when you don't. "Yeah you're right people should get healthcare... but not for free."
Otherwise if you say "no you're wrong" they get defensive and don't hear a word you said. Putting people on the defense is not going to advance your cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop there? I mean, for how long are they going to keep life essentials like a personal yacht and 24/7 Swedish hooker from everyone? How about iPods? Fuck!
It's just disgraceful, all those rich fellas ought to contribute back some of their profits to society. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, or to put it succinctly:
To each according to their need.
From each according to their ability.
Karl Marx
This is nonsense. (Score:4, Informative)
While I love the idea of free and open internet communication (unlikely if we farm this out to Google and Microsoft), if they plan on using the performances they've seen in FCC tests as the benchmark, you can expect even your cable TV to cut out. I absolutely love the concept, but the simple fact is that current versions of these devices don't work, and Kevin Martin is for sale [wikipedia.org].
I'd put $50 on him ending up at Google or Microsoft within a year of leaving the FCC. Anyone who talks with the people who were at the white-space device tests knows that these devices failed miserably. If you think the iPhone (or any GSM phone, honestly) next to your speakers is annoying, just wait for these puppies.
Wireless Audio Devices (Score:2, Informative)
Stories like this one make my head spin. For some reason, people simply can't seem to get the engineering issues through their heads.
Prototype devices tested by the FCC earlier this summer were shown to be capable of detecting Digital TV stations. However, they were not even close to capable of detecting wireless audio devices such as microphones, in-ear monitors, wireless intercom systems, and IFB devices. You may not realize it, but these devices are all around you, and chances are, they are mission-cr
Examine the premises (Score:3, Informative)
1) Spectrum being freed up.
No. No spectrum is freed up by switching from analog to digital. A digital station takes up 6Mhz, same as an analog station. It's true that the FCC has relaxed adjacent channel restrictions, but any spectrum freed by that is balanced by the loss of channels 52-69, which have already been auctioned off. There's no truly free high-VHF or UHF slot between New York and Baltimore; spectrum's full.
2) WSDs being able to detect stations
For a WSD to reliably detect another transmitter, it would have to be as sensitive and have as good an antenna as the intended reciever. What are the chances of that, particularly in a portable device? Sure, your little iAndroZune with its 2" stub can't detect the channel, but my purpose-built TV tuner with a 10dBi antenna could pick it up fine... or it could, until the iAndroZune started stepping all over it.
3) Won't interfere even assuming it finds a white space
The front-end filters on TV tuners have about a 5-channel passband. A strong signal anywhere in there can cause the RF amp to overload or force the AGC to cut in and thus desensitize the tuner. One of the FCCs own studies showed it could be cause up to 70dB of sensitivity loss on adjecent channels, which makes the difference between very good reception and none at all. Furthermore, those of us using a pre-amp to receive weaker stations don't have the benefit of front-end filtering; a white space device anywhere in the band can cause problems throughout the band. Note that some of those little USB stick tuners don't have front-end filtering either.
Free the airwaves (Score:2)
Google are in fact in favour, and have created a website here [freetheairwaves.org]. They sum it up pretty well.
Tell me where broadcasters are (Score:2)
License = limited monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Channels not being used? (Score:2)
And how are they going to properly detect which channels are not being used? There are places where signals are present on virtually every channel except in the "lo band" (channels 2 to 6) and the reserved channel 37. These signals can be very weak, and not even detectable with a cheap antenna (rabbit ears or a simple loop for UHF), while fully receivable with a decent antenna. Some low power transmitter nearby with just a tiny antenna would fail to detect the transmitted signal, has no way to know what
Licensing is better (Score:2)
Playing for time... (Score:2)
Seems odd to me that the broadcasters are playing for time. If there is an Obama presidency beginning next year, I'd expect an FCC realignment much less likely to give big players whatever they want. At some point in this whole whitespace debate, I seem to remember hearing that they were seeking no triple-adjacency for any whitespace devices. No single adjacency is understandable, double-adjacency is pushing it, but triple adjacency is ridiculous. That was a snapshot - I have no idea where the debate we
Whitespace is *already* licensed (Score:2)
Start with Military and Safety whitespace (Score:2)
If these whitespace devices are so good at detecting and avoiding interference, why don't we also put them in military, fire, and police whitespace...
Re:Upload? (Score:5, Insightful)
While you are right, I think you are emotionally wrong. If Google puts up a nationwide 3 channel white space network, paying for it with ad revenue, then yes, you do pay for it, but you don't pay for it, if you understand what I mean.
One might also argue that nothing worth having is truly free. You have to pay for it at some point, and in some way.
Besides, won't someone think of the terrorists? They need communications too!
On a lighter note, there are many situations that justify a socialistic payment plan. Imagine that everyone has Internet access, pizza and emergency services are routinely ordered via the Internet. It is so common that an entire generation has grown up using it. Now, imagine that this is only for people who can afford it. When we decide to make this pay for play forever, it ends up being the same as pay for play electricity. Perhaps not everyone can afford it, but no one can NOT afford to pay for it. The Internet is becoming something that is not really optional anymore. Sure, you can say you can live without it, but you won't be competitive, you won't be effective in society. There is a point where services become necessary rather than luxuries. The USA is at the point where Internet service is a necessity rather than a luxury.
The White Space networking plan is a good one. There is space there for controlled usage. The fear mongers are trying to sell their own services. Musicians who worry that their wireless microphones will stop working are selling fear, and blatantly so. It amazes me, musicians, like the rest of the population will have some very small percentage who are smart and who understand telecommunications, so why do we listen to all of them like they are special?
Moving on... Why should you pay for it? Simple. For the same reasons that the Federal Government tries to regulate the financial markets. It's supposed to be good for growth and prosperity of the whole country, not just for one or two people. (Even though that seems to be what is happening under the current government) when other parts of the country/economy grow, you benefit as well. The point is that tax payer dollars spent on white space networks with open access is good for the economy, and thus good for you and me. If no tax dollars are spent on it, that's even better.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. But nobody answered the first question.
And like it or not, but those telephone poles weren't put up by the phone company on their dime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.
having an unlicensed white-space broadband spectrum simply allows wireless broadband equipment manufacturers to use the white-space spectrum, which is currently monopolized by TV broadcasters and the occasional wireless microphone user. opening up the white-space spectrum to a more broadly useful (and increasingly vital) application has nothing to do with making you pay for someone else's internet access.
regardless of how
Re: (Score:2)
naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.
You mean something like: http://www.panoulu.net/ [panoulu.net]?
They (or us) just upgraded to MobileWiMAX.
Re: (Score:2)
yea, pretty much. btw, how's the quality of the wireless internet access you guys get? are you a student at one of the universities or just a local resident?
i expect most cities will have some sort of public wireless internet access in a couple of years. university towns tend to be more progressive, both culturally and technologically, so it'd make sense that they'd adopt municipal WiFi/WiMax before other cities, but there are already several non-college-town cities here in Southern California that have fre
Re: (Score:2)
I'm resident (there is only one university in the city, but several faculties).
Where I live the quality is zero :-) ... or at least was before WiMAX. I have not checked if I can get reception of that - yet.
Downtown the reception (bandwidth) is good enough for example to update Ubuntu. Not as fast as ADSL, but OK.
There are people who use it as their only Internet connection and are happy. They might not be power users, but hey, it is free (in a sense, I do pay taxes ...).
Re:Upload? (Score:4, Insightful)
While the regulation and control of airwaves seems absurd from some viewing angles, if you think about it, someone making sure that no one interferes with anyone else is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that the FCC has always done a superb job, or that laws are enacted without prejudice. I'm just saying the principle is sound and good. Since airwaves do not stop at state borders, a federal agency for such is necessary. Having said that, I agree with your sentiment but also understand that Joe the plumber down the street doesn't necessarily give a shit what my reception is like so it's good to have someone to go to for mediation of conflicts. Laws help with that mediation.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ask your doctor to decrease the dose.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>. They will probably make some money for their efforts, but they deserve to make some cash for all that work.
Isn't the same true for the local TV stations broadcasting on channels 2 to 51? Don't you think they deserve the right to have their spectrum free of interference, and therefore free of white-space devices?
Or what about those who have invested ~$300 in antennas, digital converter boxes, and monitors to watch channels 2 to 51? Don't they ALSO deserve to have access to the over-the-a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except for one pertinent instance of "fuck", all others removed and the grammar slightly altered to make up for it. Otherwise this is the exact same post as above.
--
The government, isn't trying to own the white space networks. Google and a few other companies are trying to do something good for society. People like you are trying to ruin everything because you can't understand common sense. They will probably make some money for their efforts, but for fucks sake, they deserve to make some cash for all that
Re: (Score:2)
God help us all if that post is modded as informative!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He responded to a troll in an informative way using the troll's own native dialect. Sounds informative to me.
Re:Need clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I also hear that with enough whitespace noise, the dead will arise and walk again. Killing and maiming the living in a never ending, ceasless desire for all to join them. Eventually we will all live in walled cities, praying for a quick death as plauge and starvation consume us from within. All because of little Suzzy's Whitespace Enabled iPod (LSWEP!).
Or maybe that was just some unsubstantiated FUD spread by someone who wanted to scare people into thinking the world was ending.
Who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Manufacturers don't adhere to specs well enough and make devices that are too powerful
Or else people modify their devices to output more power. It's often as easy as just taking a screwdriver to the operational-amplifier's variable resistor & turning the screw. I've never experienced someone driving-by with the XM/Sirius transmitter turned-on, but yes I can see how that would be annoying.
>>>Why not use some space allocated to UHF mobile radios?
The FCC has already approved whitesp
Re: (Score:2)
I've never experienced someone driving-by with the XM/Sirius transmitter turned-on, but yes I can see how that would be annoying.
I'm pretty sure I'm getting that for two reasons.
1) I live in a college town and have a disproportionate amount of students driving around that can't be separated from an iPod for more than five minutes. I'm fairly sure it has more to do with iPods than satellite radio since I don't actually know anybody that has a receiver for that.
2) NPR stations usually get crammed into the very bottom of the FM band, which for some reason is where most FM transmitters are set by default. Some even limit the frequ
Re: (Score:2)
Am starting to think you are a shill here but I'll try to take this seriously.... When was the last time you popped open a modern digital device like an iPod transmitter, WiFi card, or other digital transmitter and found a VARIABLE RESISTOR in it controlling power?! Are you serious? A firmware flash maybe but an analog variable resistor? Would like to see a SMT one of those heh....
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of assumptions not being declared in your post (e.g. power and bandwidth of whitespace devices). Would you mind pointing me to the tests that determined this?
Re: (Score:2)
Power == 40 mA; Bandwidth == 1 television channel; testing == FCC.gov; www.nab.org; http://www.interferencezones.com/ [interferencezones.com]
I think it's interesting looking at the list of Congresspeople who are AGAINST white space devices (bottom of page). Senator Hillary Clinton is the most prominent. Others include:
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Charles E. Grass
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Need clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed? Could someone not just make a jammer for the frequencies in question and spoil it for everyone? Or do FCC laws cover that even when it's not formally licensed? IANAEE.
FCC Regulations, Part 15 [wikipedia.org] covers this in great detail.
Here's an excerpt from sub-section 5
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.
Here is a PDF [fcc.gov] from the FCC entitled "UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS", which is exactly the rules which would be applicable to the hardware used for accessing the White-Space Broadband Spectrum .
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 in
Re: (Score:2)
From FCC.gov:
"QUIET SPOTS" (WHITE SPACES) BETWEEN STATIONS ON THE DIAL
The fact that there are locations on a radio or television tuning dial which do not receive a broadcast station does not necessarily indicate that a station can be added on that frequency. A station's signal on the same frequency or an adjacent frequency which is too distant or weak to be picked up by a radio receiver can still cause interference to other broadcast stations. For this reason, the Commission's rules require that stations lo
Re: (Score:2)
If they refuse to comply with FCC regulations, then yes you are authorized to take whatever means necessary to end their transmission.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It'd be like all the things we already do on unlicensed spectrum. Think 802.11b/g WiFi and 2.4 cordless phones running on overlapping frequncies. So possibly a lot of noise in heavy use areas. However, regulations specifying manufactured capabilities and use of items will still be made by the FCC, so intentional jammers will still be a no-no.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed?
I sent a comment to the FCC about this November 4 hearing, and in short I said this: "My channel count will drop from 15 to just 3 channels, if you allow whitespace devices to broadcast on the television band." If a neighbor turns-on a WSD next year, its broadcasts will block any television station further away that 25 miles. So instead of watching Baltimore, Philly, or Harrisburg television like I norm
Re:Need clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps, they just read your post and realized it was mostly unsubstantiated bullshiting in the fine fashion of Microsoft/Neocon/Fox News FUD.
Perhaps, they aren't modding you down because they disagree with you but because you didn't add squat to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something fishy about claims of RF devices interfering with cable signals. For one thing, c
Re: (Score:2)
External signals still "leak in" through the television or set-top box's internal receiver. My brother sees a "ghost" of local channel WGAL-8 superimposed over his cable channel 8.
And of course there are also those unterminated connections hanging out of people's walls; they act just like antennas to pick-up broadcasting transmitters (like whitespace devices).
Re: (Score:2)
Tell him to wire his cable properly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways of getting around this type of thing, read up on the various IEEE specs that assist in frequency saturation control. This will be an issue eventually. In general, however, it will not be, as long as the devices are programmed to use channels responsibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that a LOT of money or was that $300? Because frankly $300 isn't a LOT of money in the grand scheme of home theater TV much less sitting down and watching some normal crap TV. Tell me you spent $3K and have some real honest serious proof that this is going to cause issues and I'll have some sympathy.
As it stands right now I want to see more widespread high speed 'net access and this sounds like a good way to perhaps get it. I haven't found arguments against it persuasive and would like to see some indep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)