Slashdot Mirror
FCC Lets Wireless Devices Use Empty TV Channels
Dr X-ray writes, "The FCC has given its blessing to wireless devices that operate in vacant television channels; unfortunately, the devices can't go on sale until 2009, when all television broadcasters are required to switch to digital transmission. Even then, much of the spectrum won't be available. From the article at Ars Technica: 'Here's how the scheme will work: consumer electronics devices will be allowed to operate in the portion of the TV spectrum being vacated by broadcasters as they switch to digital broadcasts in 2009, with some restrictions. Channel 37 is out — it's used by radio astronomers. Channels 52-69 are also out, since they have been allocated for public safety use. Finally, channels 14-20 might be out (the Commission has asked for more information) because 13 US cities currently use parts of that spectrum for public safety communications.'"
What would I want to watch an empty TV channel for?
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Shouldn't that say something along the lines of "No band for you to transmit here, please move along." ???
Video Production Support
How about we let ISPs use empty TV spectrum for internet? Oh, wait - that would be all TV spectrum.
On a serious note, then we could use the formerly TV spectrum and newly wireless internet spectrum to deliver...
TELEVISION over IP.
But then the giant corporations would lose control of how consumers/voters think.
More
Could one recofigure one of these devices to broadcast to regular TV?
Or would that be against FCC rules?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
What does that mean? Do they use it for talking to each other?
That's the frequency that stars and other galactic stuff transmits on?
Or is it the frequency that the little green men use?
I can't believe the government is just going to let these frequencies be opened up to the public in an unlicensed fashion. That's a lot of taxes, er... licenses that could be used to generate revenue. Government just hates saying no to a tax, when they can say it's not a tax.
How much bandwidth (data rates) is available in the VHF range? I would personally I like to see FHSS equipment for long range point to point data communications and mesh networks.
There is already such a huge range of licensable spectrum, especially compared to that of which is open and free to use, that the FCC doesn't need to sell the frequencies that current TV broadcast is on.
Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been years since I worked in RF), but don't digital channels require less bandwidth? Is it time to start using channels 36, 36.2, 36.5, 36.7....? It seems that sticking with traditional FM or AM channels is a bit of a waste.
[FromTheMorning]
A new wireless device, dubbed "Rabbit Ears", are allowed by the FCC to use occupied TV channels.
mod me funny
A device intended for wireless networking isn't likely to be of much use in transmitting an NTSC (or PAL, etc.) video signal. There are a number of channels available for use within amateur radio for television transmission. All you need is a technician license. The exam is not difficult and the days of having to learn Morse Code (for the Technician license) are long gone. The ARRL has info on how to find a club/testing in your area.
-Jeff
Too late to vote, but I still think mandating moving TV over to digital is the dumbest policy the FCC could have come up with.
They're going to shift the burden to the consumer of keeping up with demands of industry.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why not sell the unused space to independent broadcasters with a requirement that they stay independent. Or you could create hundreds or possibly thousands of low power stations. Maybe these "free-market" republicans like media consolidation. And why does "public safety" need 14-20 and 52-69? thats a bit much.
Does this mean I can finally start my own television station on UHF channel 62?
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Look up Shannon limit in wikipedia.
Basically, your question is incomplete. Having a limited range of frequencies is only a limiting factor for data rates if you specify maximum signal strength and noise parameters.
Afaik, if you have a lot of power/signal strength, your bandwidth can be very high even if the frequency range you've been assigned is tiny (think: amplitude modulation). The other bounding factor is signal to noise ratio. And well this varies, depends on many environmental factors and some frequencies have limited transmissivity here on earth (water vapor, concrete buildings in the way).
A while ago the FCC had not decided if it would license the old frequency range to big companies willing to pay big bucks or if it would allow unlicensed use.
If this does mean that they went the way of unlicensed use for most of the spectrum, then I see this as one of the few good moves the FCC has made in a while for the people, in light of its bad choices about other allocation choices, wiretapping, DRM, etc that were in favor of huge companies.
I like this idea, as when building electronic devices, the more frequency choices I have the better... and the licensed spectrum is just wasted by the big companies over-charging for cell-phone plans (I don't have a cell phone).
Who's going to determine that the channels are empty and they don't cross over into legit stations? Satellite radio have this little devices that broadcast to your existing stereo or car radio at channel 88.3 because I guess they thought that was empty. Well, it's not. Now when I try to listen to my local college radio, I get to hear Howard Stern say something offensive instead. Bah.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
then the buzzworld would be iWaste.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
The bandwidth available in a single TV channel is infinite. Now let me back that up. A single TV channel, either over the air or cable, is 6MHz wide. That's not bandwidth, that's frequency range. In order to utilize that 6MHz window you need to use the properties of that window to encode your data.
Commonly, QPSK, QAM-64, QAM-256, etc. are used to encode the data for digital transmission over that bandwidth: both cable and HDTV do this. QAM-256 gets you about 38Mbps in a 6MHz channel.
----- Connection reset by beer
I agree with you.
NTSC may not be high-def, but the whole analog-tv ecosystem and infrastructure has been built up painstakingly through 70-odd years of experience.
The FCC is mandating that it all be thrown away in favor of a few years worth of half-baked digital technology, which in many cases isn't even going to work as well as conventional analog broadcasts. (If you haven't experienced the mass of multipath that is ATSC in a built-up area, it sucks.) And naturally, it won't be the same technology as the rest of the world, so the golden opportunity we had to implement a unified world standard was wasted. Did we learn nothing from the PAL/NTSC/SECAM days? Perhaps future generations will do better; I had thought maybe I'd see it in my lifetime, but apparently not.
The whole digital-TV transition seems, to me, to be nothing but a handout to the cable companies and consumer-electronics producers. There's very little in it for the "average viewer" who's currently watching broadcast. Everyone is either going to have to buy a digital ATSC tuner/converter, or subscribe to cable/satellite service, just to watch what they get for free right now. And with ATSC being the way it is, you're not even guaranteed to get the channels you now watch, using the antenna you now use.
Reading about the introduction of television to the U.S. and the FCC in the 1940s and 50s, paints a picture of an organization that's totally different from the corporate shitbags we're burdened with today.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you could run TCP/IP wireless connections over the VHF spectrum, it would be HUGE.
Imagine high-speed wireless internet with the range of broadcast TV.
The problem is, neither the cell phone companies, the DSL providers, or the cable providers will EVER allow it to happen. It would nearly kill their internet service sales in a lot of markets. I fully expect the FCC/feds to announce that the spectrum is open for aything "except data services" or something equally stupid.
I meant to post this in the "Mandatory Computer Recycling" thread. I apologize for the mistake.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
does anybody have a link to what the US TV channel frequency allocation
will look like when the dust settles?
Obsoleting NTSC completly has one major drawback. No longer will
battery operated sets be of any use. So come the next major hurricane,
earthquate, etc. TV will be USELESS for emergency communication. The law
should mandate that the broadcasters in a disaster area (if they can
still get on the air) switch back to analog during a disaster so people can
get the news over battery operated TV's. It also means that ALL digital TV's
would still have to have analog tuners for the same reason.
Finally, channels 14-20 might be out (the Commission has asked for more information) because 13 US cities currently use parts of that spectrum for public safety communications.'"
Wouldn't that mean that 13 US cities are currently violating FCC rules? I think they should be fined. Thats a piss poor excuse for the "We can't give you the bandwidth - these 13 cities are using it illegally, and so they need to continue doing so."
Above the law BS.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
True enough, but there is data-bandwidth, and RF bandwidth. They're two seperate things, although they both use the same term.
It is not incorrect to say that a TV channel has 6MHz of bandwidth, although that is in the analog world. And QAM is not the most efficient, as we're putting about 45megabit into the 6MHz channels for OTA HD broadcasting...
But point taken.
Too bad 256QAM isn't usable for wireless due to the lower SNR. Some wireless systems use 64QAM, but only at short range (1 mile?).
Clinton's administration included spectrum auctions for pagers & cell phones back in 1993 & Congress passed it as a way to cut the deficit.
A big part of Clinton's huge surplus budget projections were based on the cash to be made from FCC auctions of over-the-air TV frequencies after the switch to Digital broadcast happened.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is really good news. I can only hope that the Canadian equivalent of the FCC, the CRTC, is paying close attention.
It would be great is this next generation of wireless tools could work across the entire continent.*
___________
* Not to snub Mexico's broadcasting authority, Pedro, who is a fine fellow. I'll buy him a beer and bring him around, too.
These stories are free but worth money.
When is the transmission of codes or ciphers allowed to hide the meaning of a message transmitted by an amateur station?
Sorry the correct answer is:
Only when transmitting control commands to space stations or radio control craft
all your stations are belong to my tv... station
700 MHz spectrum is desirable because the lower frequency allows it to penetrate better than the other unlicensed data bands. The net result is better coverage with less power. If this spectrum is available to the public, it will make public and individually operated WiMax and WiFi systems.
A future feature of access points that operate in unliscenced spectrum should be an auto cell forming feature, so interference is less of an issue. If someone plops a base station down in the same bandwidth as you, it should switchover to a new channel. Another nice feature in Wi-X networks would be roaming, and portable virtual networks, so your personal data can be carried on any wireless network, through any public IP network, without loss of privacy.
I could have sworn 2006 was the deadline for broadcasters to turn their analog VHF/UHF spectrum back to the FCC. After all, they've been "loaned" the DTV spectrum, and it's not possible that they'd be so dishonest as to just keep sitting on both of them, is it?
Of course, my old analog television receivers still seem to be receiving an image, so I guess the deadline must have slipped three years.
It always seems to be three years away.
I don't think I'd count any "vacant television channels" chickens until, or if, they hatch. And I don't think I'd want to put much of my personal wealth into anything that actually depends on that spectrum ever being returned.
Of course, the FCC could always enforce... no, I forgot. The FCC doesn't enforce anything any more. Except obscenity regulations. For some reason, the free market can be trusted to take care of everything else, but not that.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Here in B'More 54's used for WNUV TV... commercial television UPN.
67 used to be used in DC for commercial tv, but I'm not sure if that station is still around.
If analog is going away, shouldn't it be unlawful for manufacturers to ship analog-only television receivers? I mean, I STILL can't find a portable digital TV set. Hauppauge still sells only analog TV cards (yeah, I should have bought PCHDTV, but I *KNOW* the hauppauge card will run under Myth with minimal effort on any distribution using the distro's stock kernel). Handhelds and televisions 20" and smaller are still all analog. Oh sure, mid-range and higher LCD televisions will 'accept' an 'HDTV' input via component video, but that isn't very portable now, is it? More stuff to lug around, plus the TV tuner is essentially worthless.
They shouldn't kill analog.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
There'll be something good to watch.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Get it's damned act straight, and license only certain spectrums to certain uses? (HELLO, 2.4-5.8 GHz... I'm looking right at you, PHONES, WIFI, MICROWAVE OVENS)
Better yet, how about we get some *REAL* technology-capable people to start heading the FCC? Than we wouldn't have such a big fucking problem to begin with. The biggest problem with government of any sorts is that it tends to be unreliable and unreasonable, only through sheer IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY of those employed within that agency. As the new video going around says... FCC - F-U....
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Interoperability?!? There is a world outside of the United Sates? We have neighbors? I respect your imagination and vision, but really. If the Harper and Bush administrations can't work through the softwood lumber dispute...
-Jeff
Wireless microphones have been useing this spectrum for many years now. The question I have is now that they are going to be blocking certain channels. Is useing your wireless mics in this spectrum going to be consideredillegal? We have older mics that are hardwired to a channel, will these be outlawed?
People say my sig is the best thing about me.
Is it in time for the "Mandatory Hardware Recycling Coming To US?" thread?
Who would will pay for the safe disposal of these FCC mandate obsoleted equipments?
You can't buy a noncrippled capture device. I had to buy a time base corrector so I could convert a few unreplacable VHS tapes to DVD. Those dvd/vhs decks won't copy protected dvd's onto VHS tape. They've crippled satellite radio devices to ban recording the signal.
I have a feeling that broadcast devices will be similarly crippled.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Anyone have more info on this? Even the FCC PDF doesn't say a damn thing.
What range of frequencies? The exceptions are all in the UHF band (14-69), are any of the VHF channels (2-13) included or not? If so, you're talking about frequencies just above the shortwave spectrum, which opens the possibility of very long-range transmissions (not ionosphere skip, but still very impressive ranges).
What kind of power are we talking about? Can the current TV broadcast towers continue at current power levels, now broadcasting IP services instead of a video signal?
Even if only UHF, the lower frequencies will not be strictly line-of-sight, unlike 802.11b/g, and could allow for longer hauls, and connections where natural or man-made obsticles have previously precluded Wireless internet access.
Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself. If they decide to limit these devices to 10mW, (despite their stated intention of broadband internet access) or require expensive licenses and regulations, it may not have any effect on the public at all.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Actually, QAM is more efficient. The ATSC standard uses 8-VSB for OTA, which provides about 19.2 Mbits/sec of usable bandwidth. 256-QAM, which is used by almost all digital cable systems, provides around 38 Mbits/sec of bandwidth in the same 6 MHz channel. 256-QAM requires a much higher signal-to-noise ratio for quasi error free reception, and isn't suitable for OTA.
And there you have it. The main "push" for broadcasters in the U.S.A. to switch to digital. Well, actually, the main reason the FCC is forcing the broadcasters to switch. As an old saying goes, "there's gold in them tharrree frequencies". The government stands to make a mint on selling the frequencies. Who cares if anyone has a digi tv or converter. They don't care, it's all about the money the government stands to make on selling off the frequencies to the highest bidder. Unless you are on cable, IPTV, sattelite, or close to a tower, I doubt you'll be happy with the reception of digitv. Plus, with the CRAP that is on 99% of the networks, why would you want to waste your time.
http://www.amazon.com/Quicksilver-Screen-Don-H-Deb randt/dp/0345373413
So they're getting UHF TV channels 52-69 and the VHF channels too? Looking at
any frequency allocation plan, really, US or European all I see is a lot of
spectrum going to "government" and military applications. Look at the US allocation plan
and look at the activity code "government exclusive" / "government/non-government
shared". Same thing when you look at the German allocation plan. Here they try to hide the amount of spectrum assigned to the government by just differentiating between military and civil application ("Nutzung mil/ziv") for example by labelling "BOS" applications ("public safety" or rather "public order") applications as civil (ziv). Btw, you have to know that "BOS" means "Behoerden der Oeffentlichen Sicherheit", "Public Safety Agencies", they don't tell you that.
"I come up with a blank every time I search for one."
Me, too.
For reasons too complicated to explain, I would gladly pay much more than $15... let's say $150... for an HDTV downconverter, because we're perfectly happy with NTSC broadcast reception, but there's ONE channel with not-very-good reception... and it happens to be the local PBS affiliate, which we watch a lot... and they broadcast in HDTV too.
So in fact I've been shopping for converters, maybe they exist, but you sure can't prove it by the sales staff at Tweeter and Best Buy and Circuit City, who don't even seem to know what I'm talking about.
I would have thought that if there were going to be a wide selection of cheap converters available in 2009, there would be a narrow selection of expensive converters available today.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!