Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Wireless Broadband?
Adroit Ape asks: "The FCC is scheduled to begin auctioning the radio spectrum salvaged from analog television by February 28, 2008. Public interest groups are calling for auction rules that give new entrants a fair shot at the spectrum, which includes 60Mhz in the 700Mhz band. Are we likely to see groundbreaking innovation in wireless broadband? Who do you foresee to be the major players in the auction and subsequent technologies?"
Because big telcom will pay off the FCC to make it as hard as possible for small-time operators to get their hands on any of that; why do you think they pushed so hard for that spectrum to be reallocated in the first place?
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
Id like to see the spectrum used for more broadcast TV channels. Im sick of paying $50+ a month for the delivery of a TV signal that is full of advertising.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Wireless broadband in the sense of wifi is very likely to be stopped or at least slowed down. Because there's no money there for companies and lots of problems for governements as it's possible to everyone to build (and grow) a public free abd uncensored network.
If the sense is that of Wireless Local Loop, then it's very likely that it will succeed as the natural evolution of the . That is, lower cost for deployment, no digging and no cables.
There can also be the possibility of the so called 4G networks as the evolution of the 2.5G and 3G wireless networks. I think companies have to first get their money back from investments, huge investments.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The beauty of 802.11b is that the power is low enough that the spectrum can be used by many people at once. If you need long range you can use a high gain antenna. If you use an omnidirectional antenna, your signal wont go far enough to screw up too many other people. Also don't make the 802.11g mistake and make the whole spectrum one big channel so that just one user can screw it up for everyone. Also don't let the channels overlap like they do with 802.11b so that one user can ruin two of the three available bands.
The Federal Communications Commission is a department of the US Government that regulates RF transmissions in the borders of the USA.
a uctions_home
The money collected for this goes to the government and is used for administrative costs such as issuing licences, tracking down violators and other general expenses.
Over the years since we first started modulating RF energy to send encoded data and voice transmissions the FCC has grown to regulate many other aspects of broadcast media. As it relates to your question, the various frenquency bands need to be regulated because, as we all know, you can't just trust people to "do the best thing".
The FCC allocates frequencies for radio stations, commercial, H.A.M Radio, various consumer technologies such as 802.11x, CB, walkie-talkies (usually implemented on the CB bands), cell phones, and just about anything that transmits a radio signal of any kind. These frequencies can become very crowded and oftentimes overlap (for example H.A.M Radio operators are allowed to transmit on 2.4 GHz in the same band that wireless networking is allocated).
At one point the bands were allocated according to what they determined to be the "Best Public Use" (or something like that). Now they just auction it off to the highest bidder. Some qualifications and guidelines are set out for both who can bid and what the frequency can be used for, how much power they can transmit on that frequency, etc.
FCC Aucitons Website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=
Maybe that's just a lack of understanding? Most banking websites rely on transport-layer security(SSL-TLS). The transmission medium hardly matters here. Even if someone is eavesdropping on a wireless signal, they'd need to break SSL-TLS to get yer data. you are far more susceptible to phishing and spyware attacks compared to wireless hacks.
*runs to grab his tinfoil hat*
This sig is intentionally left blank
The FCC needs somebody to tell them that if they allocate this spectrum for WiMax-style networking, instead of auctioning it, the effect on the economy will be so great, that in its value of an economic stimulus, the revenue collected from higher economic activity through taxation will greatly exceed whatever small sum they hope to collect for the 'rights' to the spectrum at auction.
The proof of this is simple: there will be willing buyers at the auction. They wouldn't be there if they didn't perceive the value of the airwaves to be higher than what they were going to pay at auction - the buyers are in it for the profit.
Now, with a Congress that shrinks in fear at the shape of the Laffer Curve, I don't expect this kind of logic will go over so well, so as an alternate tactic: Rural Broadband really needs VHF allocation to get WiMax out over the hills. Children in rural areas are the ones who stand to benefit most from access to the Internet and right now, on 26.4 dial-up, they're disadvantaged - Won't somebody think of the children?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The radio spectrum is a public asset. Shouldn't companies submit proposals for what to do with unused spectrum, and the FCC would then grant it based on the "highest and best use"?
[tinfoilhat]
What burns me is that it seems the whole purpose of switching to DTV was an excuse to squeeze the remaining broadcast channels into a smaller space, so they could sell off the rights to the rest. Couldn't they have just reassigned the analog channels?
People who still watch over-the-air TV aren't exactly the ones asking for higher quality, or buying new sets to get it.
[/tinfoilhat]
That said, wideley available WiMax service, or something like it, would be a great thing.
FIXME: Add a sig here