Slashdot Mirror
FCC Plans to Allow Wireless Networking on Unused TV Channels
RKBA writes "Federal regulators have endorsed a plan to use vacant TV bandwidth for wireless Internet connections. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell says it would 'dramatically increase' the availability and quality of wireless Internet connections -- especially for people in rural areas. Powell says it would be like 'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.' But TV broadcasters oppose the proposal. They argue that it would interfere with over-the-air television signals for millions of people. The FCC commissioners voted unanimously to begin the lengthy rulemaking process for the plan."
Anybody who says that Michael Powell is in the pocket of the broadcasters or any other major company doesn't know what they're talking about, and this is the proof for anybody who doubts that.
The FCC is actively looking to recycle frequency space for bandwidth wherever possible. I'm not even sure this is a workable solution... but just the fact that they're even going to open hearings about it is good for the masses.
'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.'
More like putting a bike lane between two lanes of freeway.
And maybe Billy Bob from BFE wouldn't be such a dumbass if he had access to the wealth of knowledge and information (not to mention loads of porn) that are available on the Internet.
If some bombed-out city in Iraq can get Internet access, Billy Bob should have it too.
That's fairly elitist, and not a very good proposition anyway. How does that work, exactly? Universities say, "Oh, Billy Bob is here, we'd better shut down our website!"
If anything, the internet is being dumbed down by l33t gamers more than by country folk.
With all the daytime talk shows and nighttime reality shows on now, I'd say that all channels are vacant.
I'd especially argue that there are certain religious broadcasters who are putting out such unwatchable programs that I doubt the people who are paying for the operation are even watching. I'm not against such operations on religious principal, but the idea that if nobody is watching, you're wasting the bandwidth.
There should be a minimum standard that should be attained by all TV stations for a signon-to-signoff ratings average. Even a religious or shopping program can survive, but there has to be at least some interest in the community in order for the station to keep on the air.
The broadcast media industry have a history of opposing technology that has a hair of a chance of affecting their signal--whether or not the science is on their side.
For example, the National Associaton of Broadcasters (and even National Public Radio) opposed extending licenses for low-power radio on the grounds that it would interfere with existing licensed signal--even though most people who really understand this know that it's not the case.
The real issue in these cases is usually not technical--it's about control over the airwaves.
Fist BPL, now this. The people in Washington are just loose cannons. None of these people understand the engineering behind the decisions they are making and therefore their decisions make know sense. This is only going to create chaos in the RF spectrum and it is going to lead too chaos in the market place. Imagine this. You buy brand X wireless router, but it doesn't work. Your friend's in the next state say, it works fine for us. Best buy has mass returns for particular routers in particular cities. Why? Because brand X is close in frequency to the 1MW erp HDTV broadcast transmitter and it's IF on a chip can't handle the overload. Lets have some discipline folks. This so called broadband uber alles is not going to be pretty.
UHF covers a massive chunk of spectrum -- from 470 MHz to 890 MHz. Even if you carve out some 18 MHz notches for local UHF channels, you still have hundreds of MHz of usable spectrum. And in rural areas, the full 420 band could be used for some serious wireless networking. With good compression/encoding and high enough SNR, multigigabit wireless might be possible.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Using unused channels is great, but I would much rather have an ultra-fast internet connection and download movies when I want them.
I don't know wether this is even technologically feasable (maybe have bittorent help out?), but it's not going to happen -- if it did, it would mark the end of TV commercials, and we don't want to see those go away, do we now?
I can still wish, though.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It's called ratings. People see low ratings they don't buy advertising during your show. That means the TV network won't want to carry your show.
;-)
In the end most [really] bad shows work themselves off the air quickly. The other 95% of quality made low story-content shows [re: friends, seinfeld, etc...] linger on forever...
Which begs another question, what lets you decide what is a "good" use of spectrum? Lots of people watch Friends but I still think it's a cliche tired boring pathetic wannabe comedy [I'd rather watch "family matters"].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I don't know much about networking (so much for my CS degree...), but wouldn't wireless broadband mean much cheaper broadband?
And if so wouldn't that mean that many more people be exposed to the egalitarian influence of the internet? I mean, tell me which has a greater range of political expression--the Internet, or broadcast TV? I say if we can get cheap broadband, then KILL broadcast TV. Broadcast TV is the most elite media of all, in many ways; meaning that it represents Big Money and so therefore propagates status quo memes....
With cheap broadband and cheap LCD computing devices, radical activists would be able to distribute their movies far more easily and widely. Visual media is the best way to propagate memes...
I guess it comes down to whether taking over the TV spectrum for broadband would insure cheaper broadband. Would it?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Unfortunately, these religious outfits are existing by renting an entire broadcast day of a station, or just buying the station outright. They're forever money-losing operations being funded by religous groups that rely on donations.
No ammount of low ratings can presently shut them down.
"I guess it comes down to whether taking over the TV spectrum for broadband would insure cheaper broadband. Would it?"
Has granting right of ways to cable companies made cable TV, and Internet cheaper?
Has granting a near monopoly on telephones wires, meant a cheap DSL.
Hint for both cases, to a certain degree compared to what has come before, but the really cheap has been because of DBS (vs Cable TV, and the change of rules), and in the second because of competition against cable internet, and the failure of ISDN.
In other words cheaper broadband will come about because of competition. Were's the competition against wireless internet in rural areas? Certainly not satellite. So it's cheaper than what is, or could have been. But not as cheap as people will want, but what the companies can get out of people without a revolt.
It's actually not that much, a little more than 1MHz. That'll do about 500kb, or 250kb each way. And that's only if you use the entire spectrum for one connection.
Sig is on vacation
I agree the dynamic assigning of frequencies could be quite useful. Right now the system is setup akin to a company buying an entire road and then using it 30% of the time, meanwhile people that didn't pony up the money or have their roads jammed full just sit and look at all the open space they can't use one over.
Problem is, once you start dynamically assigning frequencies, who is to say which user is the highest importance? Every industry will yell they should be higher than everyone else. Also, it requires all the radios to play very nice and move over when someone else comes in. Trunking systems are a start, but anyone that has used one knows they are not as reliable as some would hope, and they are hell for interoperability (note: that is the DHS buzzword of the year).
The software defined radio should help a ton in getting this efficient method of frequency use into the mainstream, and they are still a few years off. Some people argue bandwidth is nearly infinite and people aughta just shut up about it... I ask them to try to use a 5GHz radio to talk out of a mountainous area or beam a microwave link using 5MHz. There always will be frequencies "worth" more than others, and the fights over them will always exist.