Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Expanding Unlicensed Spectrum
Syntari writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Federal Communications Commission has begun to seek comment (the first step in promulgating regulations) "on whether unlicensed devices, like wireless home networks for Internet service, could operate on television broadcast airwaves in areas where they are not being used or at times when the spectrum lay fallow". The news release by the FCC itself, in MS-Word format, is online.
This is pretty big, as these things go - especially since television spectrum, being of a wavelength that easily penetrates walls and is not overly affected by rain or snow, is ideal for wireless services. Should any slashdotter actually want to submit a comment (gasp! could it be?), read this first (FCC's rules on electronic comment submission), and then go here."
Unlicensing the spectrum, in these times of budget deficits and an impending war, doesn't seem like a good idea fiscally.
When the UHF TV spectrum for channels 69-83 was removed in favour of fixed mobile communications over a decade ago, the bidding brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to the US government. With the burgeoning demand for wireless devices that is growing even in this fallow economy, where is the benefit to the country's coffers in unlicensing the spectrum?
Is it that perhaps this will spur new R&D in wireless devices and protocols to use this new spectrum, returning value to the economy this way? Or is there something I'm missing?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not necessarily in favour of the spectrum being one big free-for-all unlicensed hodgepodge, but I wonder why Congress hasn't stepped in and seen this as an idea to raise funds.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Well, I'm of the opinion that it's a bad idea. At least in the TV spectrum. Broadcasters do still use those frequencies, and opening them up at nebulous times like "where the frequencies aren't being used" or "at times when they're not being used" is too much to regulate. What happens when you're in an area that can't view TV signals but your neibors a few miles down the road are able to just barely pick out a signal? If you're on the same frequency, they're getting static.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Compared to many decades ago when the FCC was formed and for good reason, there's now a lot more ability to precisely control EM radiation and at a lot lower powers. The cost of transmitters and receivers and the advent of digital electronics has changed the situation dramatically.
A lot of convenient devices and applications result from unlicensed spectrum at limited power levels.
Society as a whole stands to benefit if more unlicensed spectrum is made available. Just do it in a way that does not technically (not politically) cause degradation in the licensed uses of the EM spectrum.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I find it difficult to believe that anyone within Congress will let this happen.
First, the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) will have kittens at the mere suggestion of re-assignment of spectrum, either as a primary or secondary use. They'll have an absolute tirade if the proposal calls for secondary use of television spectrum. As well they should, part of their job is lobbying in Washington for the broadcasters.
I also can not believe the incumbent telcos will stand idle for this either. After the huge investments in (the soon to die) 3G wireless, they're going to need help from Congress and a lot more of those annoying "MOTO" commercials with the extra fine print that mentions that the cool stuff needs to be downloaded -- and paid for on a per-kilobyte basis.
However, if this were come to fruition, I can only see advantages. *Finally* the public gets to use its own valuable spectrum as opposed to having it auctioned off or sold to the highest bidder. The very spectrum that was formerly used by broadcasters to effectively print money will be put back into the hands of the people that allegedly own it.
Technically, these frequencies should allow for greater range and avoid the ever present foliage and weather losses. Current 2.4/5.2 gig wireless networks are cool, but you're not going to see competitive wireless services built around them as you simply need way too many access points. Maybe this is what's needed to put real broadband into the hands of people like myself who live in rural under-served markets. It may also serve as a welcome kick in the shorts to the likes of Comcast/Covad/pick-yer-most-reviled-broadband-pro
I'm hopefull, but still a pragmatic realist about it all. Congress doesn't necessarily do what's in the best interest of the people, so if you're in favor of this, start writing your letters.
If you've ever seen a map of the frequency spectrum, the dominance of TV signals is astonishing, all the more so with double-wide HDTV. If I recall, nearly every radio (audio or navigation) frequency you can think of takes up less spectrum than a single TV station. I love TV and all, but think of the possibilities if we merely dropped Gilligan's Island reruns (haven't you seen them all before?). :)
:)
The expression "at times when the spectrum lay fallow" is interesting. To let a field lie fallow is to take it out of production for a season or more to allow it to replenish its nutrients, so that desirable crops will grow better later. A complimentary approach is to rotate crops, alternating ones that, say, replenish the bioavailable nitrogen in the soil, with others that deplete it. (I see that there is also something called "improved fallow".)
I assume checmical fertilizers have made these quaint practices obsolescent in the developed world (except for organic farmers perhaps) but what an intriguing metaphor for the airwaves. Perhaps if you hold off on passing out frequencies, more interesting uses will come along.
Just as a footnote, I don't remember demanding HDTV, I barely tolerate TV because of programming not resolution, and I haven't been happy at the industry-driven FCC resolution to force all of us to upgrade. I realize they faced a chicken-or-egg dilemma with introducing HDTV and digital signals to a skeptical public, but I would have preferred methods other than a gov't mandate. If I recall, the bandwidth was handed out for free, an interesting sacrifice given all the money made from auctioning cellphone channels. Will there come a time we regret dedicating so much spectrum to it? Or will cable make broadcast a thing of the past, anytime soon? Will HDTV flop, driving some stations to seek more useful applications for their free spectrum? Do I have even some of my facts right?
2) 90% of wireless adoption is due to laziness--people just don't want to run a wire from their TV to the speakers or from the computer to the toaster, or whatever. What about another building code change to run fiber throughout the house with a lot of available plugs? That way the problems that wireless (claims to) address can be met in other ways. What you are calling laziness is often not the case. Not everyone owns their own home, or is brave enough to 'mod' the one they have. Also, which do you think will sell better? Devices that network by requiring extensive attic crawling, or ones that just work by placing them within a few hundred feet of the next one? Good point on the security, though.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
If we turned off all the terrestrial broadcast TV transmitters, and gave those people receiving them enough money to buy the same basic service from cable/satellite TV operators, that would free up loads more spectrum for the 'higher-value' uses we are discussing here. How much would it cost to square everybody, and would it be worth it in terms of the economic development that ought to follow ?
I live in an area that the telecom folks in Denver consider to be unworthy of their time. Dial-up is my the only option at present. Opening up spectrum will make it easier to set up wireless networking so that maybe I can get on the 'net at something faster then ~46 to 48kbs.
Frankly, I am surprised that Powell has the balls. Though I note that he has been sitting on this until IBM/AT&T/Intel announced their nationwide wireless network.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
This reminds me of the "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" proposal spearheaded by Apple Computer in the 1990s. FCC granted spectrum for this, albeit not at the higher power levels requested. Maybe this second time around will see higher power limits.
q 2/970128.pr. rel.fcc.html
One reference:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1997/
The ironic thing is that after the NII band proposal went through, Apple demonished much of its related research, only to later build upon Lucent's design work in order to introduce the now very successful AirPort products (based on 2.4GHz 11Mbps IEEE 802.11b, not the 5GHz NII Band). At least the 5GHz band is being put to use in new IEEE 802.11a specs.