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!
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
A new wireless device, dubbed "Rabbit Ears", are allowed by the FCC to use occupied TV channels.
mod me funny
American 802.11g has available bandwidth of 72MHz from Channel 1 to Channel 12. Worst case scenario, thats 3 non-overlapping channels at 54mb/sec each so 162megabits per second.
VHF TV is 12 channels that are 6 MHz each in width, so a total of... you guessed it, 72MHz! So, there is the same amount of bandwidth available in the VHF TV Spectrum with two additional benifits: VHF transmitters are MUCH cheaper than 2.4GHz stuff and also usually can crank out more power, and also VHF passes through walls much better.
The only caravat is that VHF TV spectrum isn't continual. From Channel 6 to Channel 7 is a large gap that fits all the aircraft bands (130Mhz) some pagers (150Mhz) Ham Radio 2M (144MHz) and of course FM Radio (88-108MHz)...
It sounds like their also considering opening up UHF channels, which could in theory offer lots of additional bandwidth even with the restrictions mentioned...
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.
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).
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."
Obviously, the public can't be safe enough.
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.
The current TV stations pump an ENORMOUS amount of power into their broadcasts to get that range too. And it's only one way. You'd need just as much power and a huge frickin' antenna to get the signal back to the starting point.
If you could pump similar amounts of power into your wireless router, you'd get some pretty amazing sending range too...
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.
The bottom channels in the UHF TV range are right above the UHF two-way radio allocation that runs from 450 to 470 MHz. That 20 MHz band is used by police, fire, other state/local government stuff, plus commercial users and in many areas they ran out of new frequency allocations.
A bunch of years ago -- 25? -- the FCC allowed users in some metro areas where there were no low-channel UHF stations to extend into the 470 - 512 MHz range to ease congestion. It's commonly known as the "UHF-T" band and it never displaced any existing TV stations. I believe that only public safety users can get licenses for that spectrum.
You mean the FCC mandate that all TVs on sale after March 1, 2007 must support ATSC? And all TVs over 25" being sold right now? Is that soon enough?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.