Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Plans to Allow Wireless Networking on Unused TV Channels

Posted by michael on from the better-than-knight-rider-reruns dept.

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."

12 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. FCC: Government actually working right? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:FCC: Government actually working right? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it's working right: to get Bush reelected. That's why the FCC is starting a lengthy process as the 2004 election heats up, when Bush's ratings are at their lowest - lower than any reelected president has ever beat. Think the FCC has reprioritized consumers over official publishers now, 90% of the way through Bush's otherwise rapacious term? At best, these rules will arrive in time to offer the incumbent mediocracy some free, valuable public airwaves realestate to mine with high-power WiMAX, in a couple of years. More likely, it will go nowhere, except to the PR machine, like Bush's Mars mission.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:FCC: Government actually working right? by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says the GOP complained about Clinton's loosening of the FCC rules? Certain things do have bipartisan support, you know. (Offtopic: Just like when both parties teamed up to shoot down the Kyoto protocol.)

      --
      [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
    3. Re:FCC: Government actually working right? by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1600+ Stern fans, including myself have complained.

      however, the FCC says (not verbatim) they can't fine Oprah because people like her, but they can fine Howard because he is a lightning rod.

      i am more of the opinion that Stern's problem with the FCC has nothing to do with indecency and is instead, politically motivated. my .sig says what i have to think about the subject

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
    4. Re:FCC: Government actually working right? by cygnus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, that's a chicken and egg kind of problem, but the point is that the FCC licensed away all that spectrum *for free* and hasn't bothered to coerce the industry to fulfill their end of the bargain... in theory, that's the citizen's spectrum that they're using.

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    5. Re:FCC: Government actually working right? by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Chalking this up to a PR conspiracy is, oddly, naive. Wireless broadband is something only nerds care deeply about - a small subset of nerds at that. The rest of the population is mostly content with dial-up, and those who aren't (at least in large population centers) can already get broadband at home via wires.

      Now, it's POSSIBLE (though still on the paranoid side) that the FCC has some potential internet-supplying customers for those frequencies and is currying favor with those companies for campaign contributions, but this isn't an issue on which any large number of people will base their votes.

      I think the FCC should take as long as they want on this issue. When it comes it'll be nice, but until then I don't really need to have my e-mail and Slashdot headlines available to me everywhere.

  2. More like... by SCSi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.'

    More like putting a bike lane between two lanes of freeway.

  3. Re:Vacancy by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Not surprising... by leshert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Makes sense... UHF offers 420 MHz of space by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:AM Radio Spectrum by mla_anderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:A full redesign is in need by nick0909 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.