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."

Comments

FCC: Government actually working right?

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:FCC: Government actually working right?

[Rayonic]

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.)

Re:FCC: Government actually working right?

[Triumph The Insult C]

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

Re:FCC: Government actually working right?

[Babbster]

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.

More like...

[SCSi]

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

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

Re:Vacancy

[LostCluster]

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.

Not surprising...

[leshert]

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.

Re:Makes sense... UHF offers 420 MHz of space

[G4from128k]

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.