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.'"

9 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Even better! by dsginter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Even better! by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call me an old fogey, but I'm not ready yet for the death of broadcast TV. I don't watch more than an hour a week of the old style medium [not counting TV downloaded], but what I do watch is because it's instantaneous and convenient. I think the FCC should wait at least 15 more years for technology to migrate to digital and analogue capability, before rendering the TVs we have now piles of leaded junk for the landfill if someone doesn't buy a digital converter box for each set. Our environment can't take much more lead poisoning, and TVs will do that to us when thrown out by the hundreds of millions.

  2. Re:Independet TV by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It won't make much sense to let people broadcast analog TV when they no longer sell analog TV sets.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. This might one good decision out of the FCC... by ChadL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  4. Hardly a worthy successor. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Hardly a worthy successor. by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      These aren't roads we're talking about. For the cost of a new transmitter, some cameras, and editing hardware, you've easily built a new digital infrastructure. What's more, they've been at it for a decade now.

      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.

      Completely wrong. DTV isn't "half-baked", and only in select few cases will it work worse than analog. In most cases it will be far, far better than you could dream of. Perfect digital signals, even at the very edge of the coverage area.

      (If you haven't experienced the mass of multipath that is ATSC in a built-up area, it sucks.)

      You can likely fix that problem with a more directional antenna, and newer recievers, that have been improving significantly in those areas.

      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.

      Don't complain about the US, complain about Europe... ATSC was started first, and Europe just decided to chose something entirely different. It's the same old story of European politics, that goes back to the very start of the electrical grid, and before.

      When they have the opportunity to chose something incompatible with the (earlier) US standard, they always do. Not that there aren't reasons for it, in this case, but complaining that the US is being incompatible with the rest of the world is entirely backwards.

      The whole digital-TV transition seems, to me, to be nothing but a handout to the cable companies and consumer-electronics producers.

      It may well take away from cable/satellite companies, as broadcast transmissions will suddenly become crystal clear, and much higher quality than the same channels on cable/satellite.

      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.

      The government will be refunding the cost of the digital tuner, so what are you complaining about?

      That you haven't been modded down to -1 Troll by now is astounding.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  5. Re:Too late for this ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, wasn't the cable provider (or maybe the gov't?) supposed to provide cheap or free devices for accessing OTA and unencrypted wired digital signals, specifically so individuals *wouldn't* have to bear the costs?

    That sounds great in principal. I'm skeptical that they won't find a way to pass it on to the consumer somehow; they always do.

    Everyone else's bill will get hit with a $5/month "legacy access fee" or some bullshit like that.

    Large cable companies or governments do NOT absorb such costs; they pass the buck to thee and me.

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Attention: CRTC! by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. FOLLOW THE MONEY by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.