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.
Now all of the interference I get will be in the form of reruns.
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
Thanks to this, now they will have it all on UHF.
There are what, 69 television broadcast channels available? Even with a high-gain yagi on the roof, I only get a handful in my local area (San Diego) plus another handful from LA and the surrounding areas.
The other 55 or so channels are just static... begging to be used.
I for one welcome our new broadband-in-place-of TV overlords.
'doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway.'
More like putting a bike lane between two lanes of freeway.
Does this mean my TV is gonna get slashdoted somehow?
With all the daytime talk shows and nighttime reality shows on now, I'd say that all channels are vacant.
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.
...take the unused bandwidth and divert it toward broadcasting shows that havn't been dumbed-down for the masses?
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.
You are wrong. Channel one is somewhere around 50-54MHz which is the Amateur Radio 6 meter band. You can work the world on 6 meters during certain parts of the sun spot cycle with very little power. Not good for broadcasting.
This is kinda like what some amateur radio operators are doing with 802.11b transverters to lower the frequency to help in non line-of-sight situations. You can even increase to frequency to evade interference issues.
Frequency Transverters for Wireless LAN Devices
2.4 GHz to 700 MHz Converter
You added an extra 'm' in "asses"
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I hope this is not an excuse for the FCC to regulate the Internet. Would use of the public airwaves give them an excuse to regulate the Internet the way they regulate television and radio?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Slashdot: coming to a TV near you!
Wasn't some sort of datacasting part of the original digital TV spec, but kicked out of the US implementation? That certainly happened here in Australia. So, instead of a range of digital TV braodcasting entities, some using HD, some using multiple camera angles and some datacasting, we have a boring set of official digital TV signals with some half-assed wireless networking or something show-horned in.
Your tax dollars at work.
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
Hmm.
;-)
Having grown up a fair distance from most of the TV channels (probably no towers were less than 50 miles from us except maybe one), yet being able to view 15-20 channels with a large yagi antenna, I am concerned about this. Well, heck, I'm concerned about HDTV reception too.
I grew up in southeast Minnesota, near Rochester (where the Mayo Clinic is), though the town I was in was one of the highest regions of land in the area. My family mostly pointed our antenna northward at the Twin Cities, from which we could receive eight major channels (well, except when the weather was bad): 2 (PBS), 4 (CBS), 5 (ABC), 9 (was UPN, now Fox), 11 (NBC), 17 (PBS), 23 (now WB, and the infamous originator of MST3K), 29 (was Fox, now UPN). As the PAX network started up, we could sometimes see 41 from St. Cloud.
When the weather was bad, or annoying things like late-running baseball games took up a Cities channel, various other options were available by turning the antenna. CBS stations were also available from Iowa and Wisconsin. There was an ABC affiliate near the Minnesota/Iowa border, and the local NBC affiliate's tower was not far from the border either. Several PBS stations were able to be picked up to the east, west, and south.
Recently, I experimented with receiving HDTV signals with a Linux-compatible pcHDTV card. I was really annoyed to see that we had to directly point our antenna at the transmission tower to have any hope of picking up a signal. In the analog days, it was at least possible to get the gist of what was happening on most channels, even if they weren't aimed at directly by the antenna. Channel surfing at my parents' place is going to get a lot more dull (it wasn't great to begin with
HDTV transmitters (at the moment, at least) put out significantly less power than their analog counterparts. Theoretically, the same coverage is available with this lower power, but as I described, I think the FCC has a different idea of what reception and coverage actually are compared to what I think they are.
Then again, the pcHDTV card probably has a relatively poor tuner, but I definitely worry about it.
I think Michael Powell has said a few times that he things that "Free TV" (over-the-air broadcasts) are going the way of the dodo. Certainly, many people have been more interested in cable and satellite, but there is a loss of local flavor in that arrangement. I certainly credit a lot of my education and interest in science and technology to the availability of several PBS channels in my area. Even now, I live in Minneapolis, where I cringe when I think that only two PBS stations are available (well, you can say that more are available when the HDTV sub-channels are considered, but the programming on those doesn't really interest me at the moment).
Anyway, I just feel that the FCC probably won't properly answer this question. Maybe they will, but I have significant doubts.
Let's not forget what usually happens with road widening. The road is heavily congested with four lanes, and by the time two more are added, the road needs another two or its still just as congested. Highways through really developed areas are being widened every two years or so, some have reached phenominonal widths such as the 12 lane interstate now passing through the center of Atlanta GA and supported by a loop bypass that is at least 6 lanes in most parts, and yet these roads remain on the brink of massive rush hour gridlocks.
Won't broadband access go much the same way? By the time the technology exists and can be widely implemented to move X amount of data over TV bands, won't the demand be for 2X, or more?
Some people have claimed that widening highways is an expensive and very short term solution, and that some real developments of mass transit are both cheaper in the long run and more able to actually grow faster than demand. In the same way, isn't it likely that something else, such as (for just a few examples)laying some good solid fiber optic cable, or modifying the phone company's baseline all digital systems to extend the potential range of ADSL, are potentially much better solutions? I'd even look at Internet over Power Lines before I'd have much confidence in this (well, maybe not).
Who is John Cabal?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is 'sheer stupidity.' If it's based on the reasons given in your post, you may want to try reading about the actual proposed system.
The FCC will not have to license this at all. If you'd actually read about what they're doing, you you would have seen that this is intended for unlicensed devices.
I'm not quite sure how the HAMs got into this, but I don't think they'll be terribly concerned.
The size of TV broadcast towers is more a factor of the distances they're trying to reach than the frequencies being used. If you only need to go 5 miles instead of 120 miles, a short antenna is quite sufficient.
And don't forget that, in general, the atmosphere absorbs more radiation at higher frequencies than it does at lower frequencies. Thus, 5 Megawatts at 150 MHz is going to go a hell of a lot further than 5 Megawatts at 2.4 Ghz - That's why WISPs have been begging for spectrum below 1 GHz for quite a while now. The power bill is actually cheaper for a given coverage area!
I could go on for a while, but I'm tired. In short, I will say: Feel free to be skeptical, but at least have good, correct reasons to do so...
The frequency of radio waves has absolutely nothing to do with data transmission speed. Nothing.
That's absolutely incorrect.
It is just how many times the electromagnetic wave oscillates every second
Do you know anything about modulation and keying? Sure we manage to come up with new encodings to pack a few more bits onto each cycle now and then, but data speed is still related to frequency in any practical system.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
You can carry more information at 2.4Ghz though. Think of it this way if you use each peak to carry one bit of information then the frequency of peaks affects the data rate.
900 MHz = 900 M bps 2.4 GHz = 2400 M bps
To see how different encoding system work AM, FM PCM look here