FCC Rejects Cheap/Fast Internet Device

Tech.Luver writes "ABC News reports that a group of technology companies including Google, Microsoft, and Dell, have failed to convince the Federal Communications Commission of the utility of high-speed internet access via television airwaves. The FCC concluded the potential to disrupt consumer image quality was too high, in a statement released Wednesday. 'The technology companies say the unlicensed and unused TV airwaves, also known as "white spaces," would make Internet service accessible and affordable, especially in rural areas and also spur innovation. However, TV broadcasters oppose usage of white spaces because they fear the device will cause interference with television programming and could cause problems with a federally mandated transition from analog to digital signals in February 2009.'"

Comments

Interesting

[tttonyyy]

Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6938941.stm

Re:Interesting

[radl33t]

This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it?

Let's brush up those reading comprehension skills, shall we? The second paragraph from the aforementioned ABC article: The Federal Communications Commission on July 31 said the devices submitted by the technology coalition could not reliably detect unused TV spectrum, and could also cause interference.

Re:Interesting

[tttonyyy]

Exactly. It doesn't mean that this device will never see the light of day, only that more development is needed to bring it up to the standard where it'll pass.

Re:Interesting

[Intron]

This ABC article title says a device failed an FCC test. The actual article reads that broadcasters simply "fear" interference. Which is it? Do they fear signal interference or ubiquitous broadband at the expense of their decaying empire?"

Yes. But the FCC can sense fear.

Re:Interesting

[LWATCDR]

Yes I have to admit that I find this article seems to have an FCC is evil and blocking progress slant. The device failed testing and could cause interference. So they need to improve the device.

no problem

[mrjb]

Ignorant as I am, I'd say all they need to do is to just up the frequency until outside TV spectrum. As an added bonus, all you'd have to do to cook your food would be to place it near your wireless router.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, let's put it in the public safety usage bands. What a wonderful idea.

Re:no problem

[Phreakiture]

Ignorant as I am, I'd say all they need to do is to just up the frequency until outside TV spectrum. As an added bonus, all you'd have to do to cook your food would be to place it near your wireless router.

Yes, that is ignorant.

If you up the frequency until out of the first block of TV channels (2-4), you interfere with wireless hearing aids.

If you up it out of the second block (5-6), you interfere with FM radio.

If you up it out of the third block (7-13), you interfere with the military.

If you up it out of the last block (14-69), you interfere with cell phones.

Of course they are dropping channels 60-69 from the dial. This is the "700 MHz" band we have heard so much about lately.

The trouble is that while you could probably use the 700MHz band for this, it performs poorly in hilly, rural areas. VHF frequencies (like those around channels 7-13, and especially around 2-6) perform really well in such areas.

Re:no problem

[vigmeister]

OK! So if upping frequency doesn't work, why don't they just lower the wavelength?

Damn you knowledgeable types... Always finding fault in EVERYTHING. I bet you were standing right next to Orville whispering "It's gonna crash..ssss.." right in his ear.

Freaking luddites...

Cheers!
--
Vig

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you up the frequency until out of the first block of TV channels (2-4), you interfere with wireless hearing aids."

I don't see the problem here. Those with hearing aids would just get free internet connections straight to their heads. Win-win!

Re:no problem

[morari]

Wow, I would feel so sorry to have interfered with any of those things, you know, what with each and every one of them being completely worthless...

Re:no problem

[Forseti]

Wow, I would feel so sorry to have interfered with any of those things, you know, what with each and every one of them being completely worthless... No more worthless than TV! And that's beside the point...

Re:no problem

[kabocox]

If you up the frequency until out of the first block of TV channels (2-4), you interfere with wireless hearing aids.
If you up it out of the second block (5-6), you interfere with FM radio.
If you up it out of the third block (7-13), you interfere with the military.
If you up it out of the last block (14-69), you interfere with cell phones.
Of course they are dropping channels 60-69 from the dial. This is the "700 MHz" band we have heard so much about lately.
The trouble is that while you could probably use the 700MHz band for this, it performs poorly in hilly, rural areas. VHF frequencies (like those around channels 7-13, and especially around 2-6) perform really well in such areas.

Well, out of those options, sorry about those deaf people but they don't really need so much spectrum just for hearing aids. Actually, we could throw out FM, AM & cell phones if we had a nice handy dandy wireless internet ready to go. I wouldn't want to mess with military or police band widths cause those guys have guns.

Re:no problem

[gEvil (beta)]

I bet you were standing right next to Orville whispering "It's gonna crash..ssss.." right in his ear.

Yet he still made a damn good bowl of popcorn...

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

For more information, this (pdf) chart is pretty nice (US only). It's a little outdated (Oct 2003).

Re:no problem

[morari]

Nope. TV is also pretty worthless, as can be read in another one of my posts... ;)

Re:no problem

[kestasjk]

TV will be delivered over the internet in the next decade or two, so this problem will sort itself out in due course.

Re:no problem

[babyrat]

Apparently if you up to into any region at all the wave will interfere with the humour centres in the brains of geeks everywhere.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well, out of those options, sorry about those deaf
> people but they don't really need so much spectrum
> just for hearing aids

Charming. Hearing is pretty much a necessity. Internet
access is a luxury.

Sorry about all you Internet users, but you don't
really need any spectrum at all. Stick with wires.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the question is: Why do wireless hearing aids (whatever those are) need to be able to broadcast over hilly, rural areas? Don't those only need an effective range of a few feet?

Re:no problem

[enjerth]

Actually, we could throw out FM, AM & cell phones if we had a nice handy dandy wireless internet ready to go. You may have something there. If we could just convince the RIAA that radio would be moving from FM to the internet as we dispose of the use of the FM band for radio, we could have them on board to lobby for the use of the FM band for wireless internet. Imagine how much more money they could grab if all radio stations were moved to the internet and had to pay the new SoundExchange rates for 'net radio.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You also interfere with amateur radio, as we have frequencies up in that area, specifically, the 220mhz, 440mhz, and 900mhz bands.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Oct. 2003 is the current version. A new version is published after each World Radio Conference. The last one was in 2003. The next one will be in fall 2007.

Re:no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Very clever. :)

Re:no problem

[justin212k]

if you're curious how the spectrum is allocated, see here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Re:no problem

[Rockin'Robert]

Does the noise in my head bother you?
It was so loud I said, "Would someone
please answer that damned telephone,"
and they all understood.
RR

Re:no problem

[Phreakiture]

You also interfere with amateur radio, as we have frequencies up in that area, specifically, the 220mhz, 440mhz, and 900mhz bands.

QSL, however, I was mainly pointing out the immediate neighbours of the TV bands.

73 DE KC2IDF

Re:no problem

[UncleTogie]

Those with hearing aids would just get free internet connections straight to their heads.

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I could handle people constantly in my head trying to enlarge my various body parts, give me more hair, or send cash to a guy in Nigeria....

Besides, that's what the voices I ALREADY have are telling me to do!

Interference Prevention

[tonsofpcs]

It is being blocked for interference prevention, not because broadcasters fear it, but because it could not reliably detect unused TV spectrum, and could also cause interference..

Re:Interference Prevention

[morgan_greywolf]

It is being blocked for interference prevention, not because broadcasters fear it, but because it could not reliably detect unused TV spectrum, and could also cause interference..

Heck, many TVs can't reliably detect unused TV spectrum as can be witnessed by tuning your TV into the airwaves (instead of your cable/satellite) and watching the screen turn blue on stations that come in fine, but have a slightly weak signal. (like say, Windsor, Ontario's Channel 9 in Detroit).

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

That really annoys me. What exactly was wrong with just displaying static? Why do we have to show blue screens if the TV decides the channel is unwatchable? Shouldn't I, the user, be the one who decides what is unwatchable?

Re:Interference Prevention

[gEvil (beta)]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

I think this is the first time I've seen someone on slashdot advocating the elimination of the FREE option and requiring people to pay money for something.

Re:Interference Prevention

[gEvil (beta)]

That's a feature of the television/tuning device so that people don't have to watch/hear static. I've had a few VCRs and whatnot where you could disable the blue screen and watch/listen to as much static as you wanted.

Re:Interference Prevention

[morgan_greywolf]

I think this is the first time I've seen someone on slashdot advocating the elimination of the FREE option and requiring people to pay money for something. Most cable companies have subsidized 'lifeline' cable where you can get just broadcast channels and a few basic cable stations for under $20 a month. And some even offer free service for the truly economically challenged as a community service.

Re:Interference Prevention

[drsquare]

I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies...

Re:Interference Prevention

[UbuntuDupe]

Yes, it could cause grave interference with obsolete, decaying businesses' profits.

Seriously, how long until some old monopolist gripes that "omg teh smutty intertubez data cud show up on ur TV by axident lol"

Re:Interference Prevention

[GreyPoopon]

That's a feature of the television/tuning device so that people don't have to watch/hear static.

I think it's mostly for the hearing part. The noise from the static can be significantly louder than any of the TV programs that come in clearly. Probably the blue screen ought to be traded for a "mute" function when the a weak signal is detected AND the peak volume exceeds a certain threshold.

Re:Interference Prevention

[o'reor]

As a former DVB engineer, having studied the terrestrial standards for digital broadcasting, I can tell you that this fear of interference is total bullshit. The level of signal redundancy (using Viterbi encoding) combined with the forward error correction (FEC) mechanisms introduced in the signal, practically reduce the risk of interference to none.

COFDM, the modulation used in Europe, may be more robust in that area than 8VSB used in the US, still I don't believe it would be a serious concern.

I think the biggest fear for those broadcasters is, as usual, money : if those bandwidths, which they are given free and exclusive access to by the FTC, were to be auctionned off to telco operators, they might eventually have to pay to remain on air.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Joebert]

The person responsible for that "feature" is definately on my list of people to meet before I die.

Re:Interference Prevention

[morgan_greywolf]

Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies... I don't own a single share of any cable or satellite stock. But, FWIW, in most of the densely populated areas of the country there is now competition among cable and satellite providers. I think in my area (Tampa Bay) I have the choice between Bright House, Verizon, and WOW for cable, and pretty much any of the satellite providers. So if you don't have satellite/cable because you fear monopolies, it's probably time to start looking around.

Re:Interference Prevention

[imsabbel]

Er, $20 per month is the _lifeline_ offering?
Over here, 15 (less that 20$) is considered expensive for cable...

Re:Interference Prevention

[TubeSteak]

I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies... Too many people take for granted the $40~$50 per month they spend on their cable/sat TV bill.

Even people in serious debt will keep paying for their Cable/sat TV (& cell phone( until the very end.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is a particularly stupid feature. While nobody enjoys static, analog television is far more resistant to noise than digital.

Compare how understandable a static-laden analog signal is with a crystal-clear but frozen digital one. Your brain can reconstruct most of the missing data from the analog signal. It can't do anything with digital because the transmission of visual data halts.

Re:Interference Prevention

[hey]

I live in a big city and only get free over the air TV. Its enough for me. I like it.

Re:Interference Prevention

[tonsofpcs]

I don't think DVB is the worry. Analog interference is, and with the power required, even DVB can be overpowered and interfered with.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Opportunist]

I guess the difference (i.e. why those TV sets are allowed) is that TVs rarely if ever actually transmit if they can't detect that a channel is in use. At worst, they show black/blue, but they don't think it's fine to use the channel for transmissions.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Kjella]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

Well, since it seems completely impossible to find any market for figures for the US, I'll just talk from my experiences from Norway. How you get TV is very dependent on where you live, if you live somewhere central you typically have cable and it seems like "everyone else" does too. Go a little bit further out and you'll find there's a good mix of satellite or broadcast reievers. Once you start talking cabins, very few have satellites but many will put up a simple aerial antenna. By moving to digital, DTT will offer pretty much the same package as cable/satellite and would make it a lot more attractive again. Besides, using broadcast systems for pushing Internet, while using the networks for pushing IPTV seems like the least sane switch in history, at least if you're talking IPTV over wireless. Broadcast TV does a smashing job of sending the same content to everyone. Leave broadcast to be broadcast and start pulling cables so there'll be some decent internet connection instead.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

At least one TV I've seen has the option to just display the static instead of a blue screen. I think it's called "display weak stations."

Re:Interference Prevention

[ppz003]

Most cable companies have subsidized 'lifeline' cable where you can get just broadcast channels and a few basic cable stations for under $20 a month. And some even offer free service for the truly economically challenged as a community service.

Well that's nice, but I know a lot of rural areas that still don't have access to any cable at all. And depending on what side of the hill they are on, some don't even have a "clear view of the southern sky" either. Basically, over the air TV is the only option. (My parents can't get cable or DSL, but at least they can get satellite. Some neighbors can't.)

Re:Interference Prevention

[45mm]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.
I stopped paying for cable TV over a year ago, and I'm far from the first person to do so. I currently have an OTA (over-the-air aka broadcast) high-def setup in my house, 100% free after the antenna purchase (40 bucks). I'm in a valley, no problems getting all the local channels, not even during "weather". The rest? Well, I only watched a couple of them to begin with ... and most of them come out on DVD a few months after the season ends. YMMV, of course.

Here's an idea for the cable broadcasters ... drop the rates or give me the option to select only the channels (a per-channel fee, if you will) I want to watch instead of lumping me into a "plan" that gives me a massive subset of them. Maybe I'll consider coming back then? They have the hardware to do so, they're just lazy ... or I guess they don't have to since the sheeple are more than willing to pay 100/month on garbage.

Re:Interference Prevention

[bommai]

I refuse to pay even $2/month for ad supported TV. I love the 8 OTA-HD channels that I get at my home using just a small antenna. I have a HD-DVR and watch shows like CSI-Miami, 24, House, Criminal Minds, Numbers, etc without paying a dime to anyone. All in glorious 1080i or 720p HD and no extra compression. Now, why would I give that up to pay some sleazy company like Comcast.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Valdrax]

I don't have satellite nor cable, and I don't see why I should lose them just so some geeks can have better Internet access.

You're using the TV version of free dial-up access if you're relying on terrestrial TV signals for entertainment. If you had access to wireless, high-speed internet, you could watch streaming video instead. I should even have to into the difference in choices of entertainment available between the two. Plus, most UHF stations in the upper numbers are really low-quality programming.

By the way, it's not just geeks that use the internet anymore, just so you know. They're replacing the generation that uses UHF anyway.

Or maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/satellite corporate monopolies...

I dunno. Sounds to me like maybe you have a vested interest in everyone being subject to cable/phone corporate monopolies. <g>

Opening up wireless spectrum to high-speed, two-way internet access might provide us with at least as much competition as there is in the cell phone market right now. At least, we'd no longer be dependent on whichever two companies run two types of wire to our houses.

There were even proposals on the table from a group that wanted to do free, ad-supported access, so if their long-shot proposal wins you'd get much of the same experience of free TV you have now if price is your concern. Even Google is making rumbles of ad-supported devices.

Still it's a shame their device wasn't properly engineered.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yeah growing up, we didn't have cable because it was too expensive. And yet my friends that were worse off than we were financially, did have cable because of the community service.

I'm really considering dropping cable when I move into my new place. Cable is taking up way too much coding/reading/doing productive stuff time.

Re:Interference Prevention

[ubermiester]

I think this is the first time I've seen someone on slashdot advocating the elimination of the FREE option and requiring people to pay money for something. The deluge of advertising we are subjected to on a daily basis costs us much more than anyone can calculate. Think of how much time and energy we all spend cleansing our minds of all the subtle tweaks to our world view made by the advertising we encounter. Will I really have women following me if I use that body spray? Do I really need that 4x4 to commute to my job in the city? Is that politician really who she says she is? And these are just the most egregious examples of what we face in the struggle against advertising. Most people don't even know they are being manipulated.

The media culture is now the biggest challenge to democracy since it's inception. We are both better informed and more easily brainwashed.

Now this is not to say that pay tv is any better for such things. Cable stations advertise just as much as over-the-air stations (with the obvious exception of premium channels), but saying that over-the-air tv is "free" is like saying that gasoline used to cheap. We are now all paying a steep price for that delusion (and I don't mean at the pump). How long before we realize that advertising will do us in faster than global warming and jihad combined?

Re:Interference Prevention

[Puff of Logic]

Here's an idea for the cable broadcasters ... drop the rates or give me the option to select only the channels (a per-channel fee, if you will) I want to watch instead of lumping me into a "plan" that gives me a massive subset of them. I've been campaigning for this for years. Ideally, I'd like to see a true a la carte system that let me pick as many or as few channels as I liked, but I'd accept a 5, 10 or 15 channel plan too. Some have argued that indie or less well-known channels would suffer, but I don't see it as my responsibility to subsidise them. Alternatively, I'd even go for a "geek" channel package (that would obviously need a more marketable name) that contained the usual suspects beloved by the tech/history/science/history watchers. Until this happens, however, I refuse to pay a hefty cable bill for a channel line-up that consists of 90% channels that I have no interest in and are stuffed with commercials.

In a perfect world, there'd be pure digital distribution of television series and movies. All content would be streamed on-demand in a high-quality format, with a basic fee covering access to the network and perhaps a low-cost fee per hour of watching (like $.25 per hour) with no interstitial commercial "messages". I'd be very happy with that.

Re:Interference Prevention

[jddj]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable?

I'm one of those people. OTA 1080i HD KICKS FUCKING ASS compared to the miserable cable and satellite options. Why pay for shit when I've got beautiful HD coming in for free?

Please don't mess with my broadcast TV. I'm using it.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

I believe that several million people would disagree with you. in fact I bet that at least 30% of yourr neighbors use OTA for Tv.

Just because your incredibly tiny universe does not have anyone watching TV over the air does not make it a fat on the rest of the planet, I strongly suggest you actually get up and go outside, your only friends on WoW are not an accurate cross sampling of the population and what it does.

I love it when 13 year old kids like you think you know everything, you dont, you done even have even an inkling of what is reality. Your little rural Midwest town is not normal, go to New York where most have OTA Tv and not cable or satellite.

Re:Interference Prevention

[sohare]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

I think this is the first time I've seen someone on slashdot advocating the elimination of the FREE option and requiring people to pay money for something. I would advocate the hypothetical elimination of freely distributed crack-cocaine to pre-teens. Television isn't much better ;)

Re:Interference Prevention

[cHiphead]

My Comcast is running at 10-12mbps sustained right now, if money got tight, I'd be hard pressed to give that up.

Cheers.

Re:Interference Prevention

[kajumix]

it's not about money, it's about technology.. it'd take free satellite/cable any day..

Re:Interference Prevention

[porcupine8]

Me. I don't have $50/month lying around to pay for 8 channels I'd watch and 100+ I wouldn't. I'll get cable as soon as they offer an a la carte version for under $25/month. Until then, Netflix meets my non-broadcast needs. Sure, I can get "basic cable" for $25, but it includes nothing that's not broadcast, news, or shopping - so I'd be paying for about twenty channels I wouldn't watch, and a dozen I can get with my antenna. Woo!!

Re:Interference Prevention

[porcupine8]

Yay, I'd LOVE to pay $20/month for what I get for free now! Sounds GREAT! I also eat a ten dollar bill every morning for breakfast, it is TASTY!

Re:Interference Prevention

[SL Baur]

Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? Every one. Personally, I don't know anyone who has satellite or cable for TV. What country do you live in?

My wife and children watch TV, I don't and I wouldn't care, but there's less crying if there's a TV around.

Re:Interference Prevention

[HTH NE1]

What exactly was wrong with just displaying static? Why do we have to show blue screens if the TV decides the channel is unwatchable? Shouldn't I, the user, be the one who decides what is unwatchable?

It bypasses the DRM on scrambled analog cable channels, allowing people to listen to stand-up comedy on HBO without paying for it.

Of course, hardly anyone scrambles analog cable anymore. It's just the usual local police training videos during the daytime hours of the local Public Access Channel that get analog-scrambled anymore (actual open public-access programming is between 10 PM and 3 AM).

Re:Interference Prevention

[ADHDYoshi]

My TV has that function. But you can't turn it off, and everyone knows that listening to the static is half the fun.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Dragonslicer]

You're assuming that all channels have equal monetary value. If you only watch 5 or 10 obscure, unpopular channels, your cable bill might go down. Otherwise, all of those less well-known channels that you never watch are essentially free anyway. With the amount of television that I usually watch, I end up paying about $1/hour, which I think is pretty reasonable for the channels that I watch.

Re:Interference Prevention

[UbuntuDupe]

I've been campaigning for this for years. Ideally, I'd like to see a true a la carte system that let me pick as many or as few channels as I liked, but I'd accept a 5, 10 or 15 channel plan too.

Yes, and here's what would happen if you got what you're asking for:

1) Cable company transmits to you sufficient data for all channels, but "locks" the ones you didn't pick out.
2) You and others gripe that this is DRM, greedy, &c.
3) Someone starts a website showing how to unlock those channels.
4) Another good deed goes punished.

Oh, and:

tech/history/science/history channels

Don't you mean redundancy/tech/history/science/history/redundancy channels? ;-)

Re:Interference Prevention

[Bluesman]

"The level of signal redundancy (using Viterbi encoding) combined with the forward error correction (FEC) mechanisms introduced in the signal, practically reduce the risk of interference to none."

I'm sorry, but that's just misleading.

In any channel transmitting digital data, you have a certain bit error rate (BER). Using error correction techniques, you can improve the performance of the channel such that the BER is equivalent to that of a channel with much less noise, or much higher transmit power, or much higher antenna gain. Error correction provides gains that you can measure in decibels, just like an increase in transmit power would.

But a dB loss is a dB loss, it doesn't matter if it's due to weather, interference, etc. If interference causes a dB loss over and above what the channel was designed for, you lose more bits than expected, and quality degrades.

Re:Interference Prevention

[billster0808]

You can do that now, its called stealing cable. It probably wouldn't be any harder or any more illegal than it is now.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Courageous]

The a la carte system will eventually happen, just not yet. Once all the broadband connections going into enough homes are sufficient to handle the bandwidth (and likewise the core infrastructure along with it), what you'll see is middlemen (like cable companies) getting eliminated. End users will buy their products directly from the manufacturer, so to speak. I'm just waiting for the day where I can buy CNN, the History Channel, SCI-FI, and, um, the Hustler Channel or something. And that's all. Won't be long now. Any delays will be associated with the broadband itself. That's all that's in the way.

C//

Re:Interference Prevention

[Deliveranc3]

Well I can stream a TV quality signal at about 340-480 kpbs so if they offered free wifi and a simple device (like the moded Xbox) to convert it to programming it would be cheaper and offer more viewer choice.

I'm not sure we can't have government provided wifi with the TV spectrum intact but apparently we're being told to believe that we can't have either (we'll probably end up with no free TV stations just as we run out of spectrum possibilities for universal internet access.

But damn it I want us to at least TRY to open the spectrum! (And yes I have cable and High-Speed internet... but I want people who don't to have the same capabilities because they should be DAMN cheap).

Re:Interference Prevention

[kackle]

You apparently don't know many elderly or other fixed-income folks...

Re:Interference Prevention

[Puff of Logic]

You're assuming that all channels have equal monetary value. If you only watch 5 or 10 obscure, unpopular channels, your cable bill might go down. Otherwise, all of those less well-known channels that you never watch are essentially free anyway. With the amount of television that I usually watch, I end up paying about $1/hour, which I think is pretty reasonable for the channels that I watch. Good point. I pay a similar rate for on-demand streaming from Netflix, which allows an hour of streamed content per dollar paid for the monthly subscription. It's actually a nice little bonus, and perhaps a dollar per hour (of uninterrupted content) is a pretty reasonable rate. I think my main point though is that I don't care for a plan in which I pay say $60/month for what ultimately turns out to be five channels I'm really interested in. The other channels aren't "free" but are subsidised by my bill. Similarly, people who watch VH1 obsessively probably aren't terribly interested in TLC or SciFi. Much better, in my mind, to simply pay for what one uses, rather than what is available. Differential pricing for popular vs. unpopular channels is an interesting idea, and it would be interesting to see at price-points people would accept for various content.

Re:Interference Prevention

[SpecTheIntro]

15 (less that 20$)

Thank you for clarifying that relationship. :D

Re:Interference Prevention

[Puff of Logic]

Yes, and here's what would happen if you got what you're asking for:

1) Cable company transmits to you sufficient data for all channels, but "locks" the ones you didn't pick out.
2) You and others gripe that this is DRM, greedy, &c.
3) Someone starts a website showing how to unlock those channels.
4) Another good deed goes punished.

Nonsense. My gripe with DRM is two-fold: I don't like my business transactions with a company having any basis in the idea that I'm dishonest; and I don't want to have to deal with restrictive and unreasonable (in my view) usage polices, again predicated on the idea that I'll violate their copyright if given half a chance. I don't think it's an unreasonable stance and I suspect it's a position shared by a large portion of the Slashdot readership. For example, I support the iTunes Plus model because I prefer digital distribution for music with no unreasonable restrictions on usage. I have no intention of filesharing my music library and don't support those who believe that such files should be freely distributed without appropriate compensation to the artists.

With respect to your point about the cable company transmitting all data to me but locking the unsubscribed channel, I don't regard not having access to something I haven't paid for as DRM, but rather regard restrictions upon reasonable usage as unacceptable DRM. Besides, wouldn't it be far more efficient to simply transmit the data on-demand, or simply transmit the subscribed channels? I think we need to move away from the idea of channels playing non-stop with set program cycles, and push for true on-demand programming. This would obviate the need for Tivo-type devices and free up bandwidth. The caveat is that I'm not remotely technically qualified to speak to the feasibility of this proposal and thus I'm entirely open to being corrected by someone who knows more than I.

Don't you mean redundancy/tech/history/science/history/redundancy channels? ;-)
Damn, and I looked at that sentence twice before I submitted. In my defense, this is Slashdot and I didn't expect anyone to actually read my comment!

cheers.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Puff of Logic]

The a la carte system will eventually happen, just not yet. Once all the broadband connections going into enough homes are sufficient to handle the bandwidth (and likewise the core infrastructure along with it), what you'll see is middlemen (like cable companies) getting eliminated. End users will buy their products directly from the manufacturer, so to speak. I'm just waiting for the day where I can buy CNN, the History Channel, SCI-FI, and, um, the Hustler Channel or something. And that's all. Won't be long now. Any delays will be associated with the broadband itself. That's all that's in the way. Interesting. Presumably the infrastructure for an appropriately robust broadband system would remain in the hands of the cable companies, so I wonder if they'd allow themselves to be relegated to a purely technological role (maintaining the communications channels) while permitting CNN et al to directly sell their content to end users?

Re:Interference Prevention

[RESPAWN]

Actually, years ago we had a C-Band provider that did offer an a-la-carte plan. This was in addition to all of the free channels on the C-Band satellites, of course. However, as technology progresively got cheaper, their rates seemed to get progressively higher so that they eventually priced their services such that it just made more sense to switch to Dish Network.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Puff of Logic]

Actually, years ago we had a C-Band provider that did offer an a-la-carte plan. This was in addition to all of the free channels on the C-Band satellites, of course. However, as technology progresively got cheaper, their rates seemed to get progressively higher so that they eventually priced their services such that it just made more sense to switch to Dish Network. Interesting. What was your experience with the a-la-carte plan offered at the time? Did you take advantage of it or was it not compelling for some reason?

Re:Interference Prevention

[johnpaul191]

i think it's more the principle. i know people that see no reason to pay for TV that is full of commercials and a slew of channels they just don't care about (like my mom!). i know people that hardly watch TV except maybe some local news. i know people that are regularly out of town, or working crazy long hours a few weeks a month, so it seems stupid to add an unneeded utility. then i know a few people that don't even own TV, but they are not really part of this mess.

i have cable because i live in a house with a few people that all split it. if i lived alone i would never pay what we do for TV.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Me!

paying for internet + ads eliminated for free = much more rewarding than paying for television with ads that you CAN'T ESCAPE.

Re:Interference Prevention

[Courageous]

It's a very good question. In my region, and I believe most regions, cable is not a dejure monopoly. It is a defacto one. I.e, it is a purely natural monopoly due to the disincentive to a potential competitor of having to lay down duplicate lines. They don't compete with one another because... they don't. :) Herein lies a great deal of the difficulty.

I view thing's like Verizon's FIOS as to be extremely promising in that regard. Alas, I'm stuck with SBC (now AT&T... whoa, blast from the past... you'd think that we would have learned!).

C//

Re:Interference Prevention

[LackThereof]

Anyway, I say the whole broadcast TV thing needs to just die anyway. Seriously, how many people do you know personally who don't have satellite or cable? I know of one person, but that's it.

Screw that. I /actually use/ a rabbit-ear antenna. As do many people in my neighborhood.

I live in an urban area. All of the VHF stations come in crystal clear on my 30 year old television set, and most of the UHF stations do, too. The Fox affiliate comes in a little bit fuzzy, but that's because they broadcast from a suburb 30 very hilly miles south of here; if I had a proper roof antenna there would be no problem.

The local cable monopoly has nothing to offer me other than 50 channels I have no interest in, and 5 or so channels I have no interest in paying $49.99/mo for. Their value is going to get much worse when I finally buy an HDTV - all the local channels are already broadcasting HD signals, which I can already pick up on my $14.99 bunny ears - to get HD on cable I have to get the $61.39/mo package. A la carte programming would make this situation somewhat better, but that will only happen over their cold dead bodies (which sounds like a reasonable solution to me).

Basically, screw that idea. Broadcast TV must stay around. If I don't get my Letterman, I get very very angry.

Aside: What is up with cable/sat providers anyway? I pay, but still have to watch commercials? Is there something I just don't understand here?

Re:Interference Prevention

[TriggerFin]

Well that's nice, but I know a lot of rural areas that still don't have access to any cable at all. And depending on what side of the hill they are on, some don't even have a "clear view of the southern sky" either. Basically, over the air TV is the only option.

Well, I myself live in a rural area where we have one cable provider, don't have a clear view of the southern sky, and have no "over the air TV" option. On a good day I might be able to pick up channels 2,4, and 5.

Re:Interference Prevention

[rundgren]

"costs us" ? Are you suggesting that you are "cleansing your mind" of thoughts of 4x4s and women chasing you instead of going to work? If so, you appear to be quite stupid and will soon starve to death (or at least lose your apartment..) Most people know very well what commercials are for, and most people doesn't mind being manipulated in regards to what soap or painkiller to buy.. What do you suggest as an alternative to advertising, by the way? A government-mandated ban on brand-names, or a law against talking favorably about products? Both? Advertising is clearly no challenge to democracy at all. But a threat to democracy and freedom is people who want to limit freedom of speech.

Re:Interference Prevention

[ubermiester]

"costs us" ? Are you suggesting that you are "cleansing your mind" of thoughts of 4x4s and women chasing you instead of going to work? If so, you appear to be quite stupid First of all, calling someone stupid because you disagree with them is the first step on the road to limiting freedom of speech. And I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "cleansing your mind". What I said was that it takes a sustained effort to mitigate the influence of advertisement, and if you are not doing so yourself, you should probably have a long talk with someone, because you probably think that real men only smoke Marlboro and that you've just got to have that new thingamajig.

Second, I am in no way advocating a ban on anything. Yes, people know what commercials are for, but they do not want to be deluged by advertising, they simply tolerate it because they know it is a part of a liberal democracy. It distorts people's view of the world because it is "offered" in the guise of real information and is at the same time completely biased and unreliable. Do you like listening to someone who you know to be full of shit?

As for solutions, the best way to negate the effects of a lie is to offer the truth. Why not require advertisers to provide sources for their claims, or to explicitly state their intentions, e.g., "we are claiming that our body spray will make women want to have sex with you". How well would innuendo work when you can no longer get away with just a wink and a nudge?

There are very definite repercussions on our culture and our politics from the rapidly accelerating media blitz we now face. Consider the simple fact there was a time when you could go for days or even weeks without seeing any form of advertisement and now we are struggling to keep it away from us for a few minutes of peace. Think talking billboards (some of which actually show real commercials), spam, telemarketers, flyers, magazine ads, tv commercials, etc. It is everywhere and only getting worse.

And if you doubt its effects, consider that most people can tell you more about the iPhone than their senator.

Advertising is clearly no challenge to democracy at all. How was it that you came to this conclusion exactly? Where is your evidence? Have you even given it any thought?

Check this out if you're actually interested. If not, enjoy your Pepsi.

Re:Interference Prevention

[vranash]

Yeah, captive audience, nuff said.

I've been watching cable pretty often at night staying at my grandmother's, and after about two weeks I realized: It's the EXACT SAME CRAP, sometimes days in a row. Sat/Sun on like TBS or FX or something they were playing the same movies back to back two nights in a row (in one case I think they even had austin powers 1 on twice in a row.) Another example is SciFi, where it's like the same 5 syndicated shows filled in with their crummy made for tv movies during the day till 9-10 at night (later depending on the day, but I only watch them on Fridays usually, the new show lineup and all.)

Anyhow, the only reason it's still in the house is momentum. She had it to watch CNN which she's stopped watching since TBS sold out, and to get clear local TV (which she has no interest in getting a decent antenna to replace, go figure!).

For the amount of money spent yearly on Cable, I could probably get the entire DVD collection of every seasonal show on that year, and still have enough left over for a really nice dinner, a box of condoms, and the prerequisite bottle of liquor to get the girl I took out to go down on me ;p

Re:Interference Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Entourage (HBO), Weeds (Showtime), Penn and Teller (Showtime), Psych (USA), Monk (USA), Battlestar Galactica (Sci-Fi), and Heroes (Sci-Fi). That's why. The shows you listed are all garbage, with the possible exception of House.

Re:Interference Prevention

[ShakaUVM]

Hmm, doubtful, at least any time soon. The current setup makes too much money for the cable companies, so they don't have a lot of incentive to change the sweet deal they have for themselves. Essentially, they're reverse ISPs, which package the internet and then spoon feed it to their subscribers.

ABC has already started offering their shows over IP, but it relegates you to watching Grey's Anatomy on a relatively small screen, getting a crick in your neck from staring at the laptop too long.

AT&T is pushing something called IPTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTV) which sounds like it might be a good solution to a lot of problems. But you'll still be paying through the nose for cable service.

At the current rates for cable service (my parents pay something ridiculous), when I moved into a new house I made the decision to not get cable, and have been pretty happy with it so far. Broadcast HDTV gives me a few channels to entertain my girlfriend with when she comes over, and I don't watch TV at all these days.

The ol' Upstream Question.

[FatSean]

I'm guessing you need a phone-line sos yer requests can be transmitted?

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[Intron]

The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. The rate increase makes this pretty high cost/bit. Secure TCP (letter rate) is 0.41/packet and insecure UDP (postcard) is 0.26/packet.

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[MrNaz]

When you first said "USPS" I thought "nah, he couldn't be talking about the postal service" but then you said "letter rate", and now I just have to say that I don't fancy the idea of printing all my ACK packets and sending them back. What happened to the paperless office? Obviously it's only paperless if you're using UDP!

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[computechnica]

Thats the way the first Sattilite Internet systems worked. The response time was acually faster than the current 2-Way systems.

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[HTH NE1]

Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.

The downlink speed using UHF is quite fast. They didn't mention that the upstream link uses USPS. Maybe they'd get better latency if they used the UKPS.

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[utopianfiat]

I'm commenting on your reply, but you'll have to wait for about a day- please read it, stamps are expensive!

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, UDP isn't postcard. It's bulk rate. The sender doesn't get a guarantee the letter made it to them, and there is no failure mechanism if the delivery fails, and the package is dropped on the floor.

Post cards have return and address forwarding service; bulk rate does not.

TMYN.

Re:The ol' Upstream Question.

[dl12345]

Alternatively, you could implement RFC 1149

Deadline

[asudhir]

And we all know that that "February 2009" deadline is actually going to be upheld.

Re:Deadline

[tonsofpcs]

The February 2009 deadline has been given and it is repeatedly cited that it will be upheld. Do note that the Feb. 2009 digital transition deadline does not apply to all stations.

Re:Deadline

[rhartness]

I'm hoping it will be upheld. I'm tired of holding out on getting a High-Def so I can get my government subsides (SP?) for the two analog TVs that I have.

Re:Deadline

[MrNaz]

As a non-US citizen, I too hope your government subsides.
(Not a spelling Nazi, just poking you coz you pointed it out :P )

Re:Deadline

[tonyquan]

You won't get a subsidy to buy a Hi-Def TV. All you'll get is a $40 voucher to buy a convertor box that will let you watch digital TV signals on your analog TVs. Of course, this won't magically make your TVs hi-def.

Re:Deadline

[rhartness]

Yeah, I just want the $40 check (or $80 if it's per TV).

Re:Deadline

[tonyquan]

Umm, it's not a check either. It's a $40 voucher good only as a discount on the price of a converter box. It has no cash value (and since it should be easy to get one, selling it wouldn't be profitable either)

The FAQ for the program is here:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/faq.html

air waves? who uses??

[b100dian]

But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now??
Oh, and sattelites, of course!

Re:air waves? who uses??

[dsginter]

But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now??

I've ditched the cable/satellite in favor of terrestrial HDTV. You'd be surprised with the amount of content that you can acquire through time shifting and a good antenna (especially if you like PBS stuff like Nova).

Cable/Satellite TV's days are numbered with solid internet broadcasting.

Re:air waves? who uses??

[Skapare]

But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now??
Oh, and sattelites, of course!

Sure, they are being relayed over cable and satellite. But the quality over the air is actually better with the switch to digital. Many cable and satellite providers are either still carrying many stations only in analog, or are overcompressing the picture data. For stations that have gone to their full digital power, over the air reception is actually better than it was for analog.

Also, the FCC has been holding off processing new TV station applications for a few years due to the transition, and the fact that most stations are using 2 channels in parallel. Once the analog channels get shutdown by midnight February 17, 2009 (it's now a stable hard deadline), and after remaining interference issues are settled, the FCC can begin processing the new TV station applications.

One thing digital technology also does with the spectrum is allow channels to be spaced tighter in the spectrum as well as geographically. You could be located half way between two TV stations on the same channel and, depending on which way you point your antenna, receive either or both. TV stations can now be packed tighter. One result of this is the removal of more TV spectrum (channels 52 and up) which is going to be used for other services such as data providers and emergency two-way radio (with digital technology). That and the new applications could very well fill up the TV spectrum, especially on the available UHF channels (14 to 36 and 38 to 51).

Re:air waves? who uses??

[elrous0]

Unfortunately the affiliate system in the U.S. has been holding back the technological infrastructure for some time in this regard and many others. The affiliates have a vested interest in maintaining the old structure of pre-cable American television and so they fight innovation too-and-nail. They fought cable when it came in. They fought to get a law passed banning satellites from carrying major networks if they weren't through the local affiliate in the area. They fought the long-overdue HDTV switch. And now that they've lost that fight, they're fighting any interference with their broadcast signals because that is the only clear advantage that they still have over cable and satellite (because they can still broadcast their HDTV signals over-the-air without compression).

Re:air waves? who uses??

[DreadPiratePizz]

What are you talking about? Get a TV with rabbit ears, and flip around. There's quite a few different stations you can pick up. Every major broadcast channel, NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS etc still does this.

Re:air waves? who uses??

[b100dian]

I'm sorry - here in Romania we only have the national channel broadcasted country-wide, through airwaves.
All others are satellite and we get them through the cable companies.
So basically I thought airwaves are pretty "free" in other countries too - guess I was wrong;)

Re:air waves? who uses??

[Opportunist]

Only in Europe, and only in countries that upheld the government monopoly at least into the late 80s. I was quite amazed when I was in the US the first time, they routinely get like 20+ channels via antenna, that's more than we had in the early days of cable (2 state + 8 cable channels, mid-80s).

Re:air waves? who uses??

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Because of commercials, wherever a local TV station theoretically can be received the cable broadcasters have to carry the local signal *with the commercials*. Thats $$$.
2. Because some of the products that want to use the unlicensed bands want to provide IPTV over those bands. The TV broadcasters don't want competition.

Re:air waves? who uses??

[afidel]

Unfortunately my local PBS station is broadcasting their HDTV feed from the equivalent of a coat hanger due to budget constraints. Even the cable companies can't pick it up from their rebroadcasters about a mile away.

Re:air waves? who uses??

[CheapEngineer]

I call bullsh*t.

'The affiliate system'? Riiiight.

It's Money, and *only* money, that made Broadcasters bitch about the conversion to Digital.

Do you have any idea how much it *costs* to put up another run of line up a tower, and a new transmitter on the ground, *and* get a *digital* signal there?

The tower/line is an average of $400-600K. *If* you can find an available tower crew.

The Transmitter costs start at $600K and goto $1.5M range, depending on your channel assignment and/or how much power you have to make to replicate your range.

I worked at one station who was Analog channel 3 - their power bill was $900/month. DTV allotment was Channel 48. To duplicate coverage at that frequency, it took enough power to generate a $7000/month electric bill.

Sure, Broadcasters are making out like *bandits*!

BTW, the signal TV broadcasters send over-the-air *is* compressed - from an original 370Meg down to a max of 19.2Meg. And most stations would be *thrilled* if the local cable headend would carry their DTV signal un-molested. The cable companies want to compress it much harder, to the point where their signals look better.

Time for you to find another Straw-Man for *this* argument, Clyde.

CheapEngineer
(stuck at a transmitter site, Deep in the Plains)

In short...

[Chas]

*COUGH*BULLSHIT*COUGH*

BPL contrast.

[auroran]

It's interesting to see that th FCC is taking the stance that they are with this one.
They're pushing ahead w/ the BPL approvals despite the known and measured interference that the ARRL has presented to them. (They've shown that it's not just the hams that are effected too.) Yet they are concerned about interference on a new system before it's even tested because of the possibility of interference.

It's sounding like the power companies using BPL and media companies may have purchased a few FCC employees to look after their corporate interests.

Re:BPL contrast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Google needs to purchase them back. "Do no evil" damn. Man up and bribe some decent internet for us already.

Re:BPL contrast.

[Chyeld]

Think of it more like this: who is more likely to have a more powerful lobby with the FCC?

• TV Broadcasters who purchase licenses from the government for outrageous sums of money.
• Amateur radio operators who pay little for their ability to use the airwaves.

Re:BPL contrast.

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's sounding like the power companies using BPL and media companies may have purchased a few FCC employees to look after their corporate interests.

Oh, that is such nonsense! Why is it whenever the FCC does something someone doesn't like, the first thing you hear is about buying
FCC employees? Don't you know that if they buy government officials they'll have to deduct that over the next five years? They rent them,
and claim it as a deductible expense in this year. Duh.

YAFWS - Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard

[jo42]

How many does that make it now? Do we need Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard?

Why can't these bozos come up with One Good Standard (tm), implement it and go with it? Idijts.

Re:YAFWS - Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard

[morgan_greywolf]

Why can't these bozos come up with One Good Standard (tm), implement it and go with it? Because as technology advances, we come up with better and better ways to do stuff. Each standard gets faster and faster, and cheaper and cheaper. You might as well ask 'why can't these bozos come up with One Good CPU design, implement it and go with it?', it's about the same thing.

Re:YAFWS - Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard

[HateBreeder]

you know, if you're gonna "censor" all the "bad" words (fsck, idijts) you better just avoid them in the first place.

it looks silly.

Re:YAFWS - Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard

[squiggleslash]

Well, there was one good CPU design, but unfortunately the 6809 just never took off...

Re:YAFWS - Yet Another Fscking Wireless Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, if you're gonna "censor" all the "bad" words (fsck, idijts) you better just avoid them in the first place.

it looks silly. In the famous words of tourettes guy:
fuuuuuuuucckkkk....piiiiisssssssssssss.... sshhhhhiiiiiiiiiitttttt!

Big Money vs. Big Money.

[jellomizer]

It is a case of Big Money vs. Big Money because both sides have huge amount of money to throw into it they figure regecting change will be the easist choice.

Re:Big Money vs. Big Money.

[Skapare]

In this case, however, the FCC is making a wise decision.

It is unclear if this new technology will actually properly protect TV reception. A device in one home might not detect any TV station at all on a given channel even though the next home over is actually receiving one or even two stations on that very channel.

It is also unclear just how much open space will remain in the TV spectrum. There is a huge backlog of new TV station applications the FCC will begin to process sometime after the analog cutoff. Digital does allow packing the spectrum much tighter and as a result of that, much of the TV spectrum has already been removed for other uses (to be fully effective on the analog cutoff day). So the amount of spare spectrum may end up being very minimal.

Watch what the bidders on the converted 700 MHz spectrum do.

Need to protect the incumbent telco's

[Anonymous Coward]

-- This is just like broadband over powerline (BPL). The FCC makes sure the requirements are inadequate, such that there is guaranteed interference with somebody (with Congressional influence). The FCC then quashes it, in order to help it's telco friends.
-- BPL still exists for the moment, as, there is not enough influential pain being relayed to Congress yet. Don't worry, BPL will be quashed.
-- Gotta protect the telco's, so that the commissioners have lucrative future position and employment.

Re:Need to protect the incumbent telco's

[Skapare]

BPL will, and should, be quashed because it is a flawed technology from the outset. It inherintly leaks to the air, making it both subject to RF interference and a source of RF interference. BPL is also very bandwidth limited with no growth potential (because the faster it has to go, the higher the frequencies it needs to use, and the more it will interfere because higher frequencies will leak even more from power lines).

Power companies should, instead, install fiber over their poles, or in the ground along the way.

In fairness...

[tygerstripes]

I can see the TV people's point. It's not like those frequencies are a big truck you can just dump stuff on.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, those frequencies are a series of tubes, and when those tubes get full... they leak.

Leak into the other tubes which the TV signals use.

Re:In fairness...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if this were to be implemented it would actually be like a bunch of tubes being stuffed into a bunch of bigger tubes?

Re:In fairness...

[Arthur Grumbine]

Although if we do end up getting internet over the airwaves and into our TV, it really will end up being the Boob tube.

FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Ancient_Hacker]

Putting wireless internet on the freed-up TV channels is a particularly poor use of the spectrum. Each TV channel is only about 6 MHz wide (4.5 plus some guard space). That would accomodate maybe 50 million bits per second of service, across the propagation range of VHF and UHF, which depending on power and weather, can range from a few hundred meters to several hundred miles. If you use a few hundred watts you could cover a few square miles, but so can the current Wifi channels. Covering a large rural are is impractical as you'd need many watts of power transmitted at the user's end, and only a limited number of users could be handled.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Bluesman]

"Covering a large rural are is impractical as you'd need many watts of power transmitted at the user's end, and only a limited number of users could be handled."

Huh? How big of an area are you talking about? Cell phones don't transmit with many watts of power, and they still work in rural areas.

The UHF TV stations are within 100MHz of commonly used cell phone frequency ranges, so the propagation, antenna length, and power requirements would be very similar.

Being that the user would be based at home, and not limited by the size of a mobile phone and battery, there would be more than enough power.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget that rural areas ! don't have enough people that a problem would occur. Grandparent(?) has been invalidated on both counts.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Ancient_Hacker]

>Cell phones don't transmit with many watts of power, and they still work in rural areas.

Power needed is proportional to the bandwidth. If you want to send Morse code, you only need like a 1Hz bandwidth and it only takes milliwatts to overcome the noise in a 1Hz bandwidth. To send voice, you only need a few KHz of bandwidth, so the power required is modest. But if you want cable modem amounts of thruput, you need Megahertz of bandwidth and it takes correspondingly more power to fill that bandwidth.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

People in rural areas wouldn't necessarily need cable modem speeds, anything better than a 28.8Kbs modem would work for them.

My father lives in such an area and his options are limited to modems, cellular modems and satellite links. No one wants to provide fiber or cable service to the area because it's not cost effective. Some sort of wireless link is pretty much all people in such areas can hope for.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree .... WiFi is at 2.4GHz and doesn't go thru foliage very well. I'm a small WISP (wireless ISP), currently using 900MHz, 2.4 and 5.8GHz. The 900 works OK for a mile or two (this is using 400mw transmit power) and can transfer maybe 6Mb/s in a 6MHz channel. But 900MHz is a crowded spectrum, the noise level goes up every month. Wireless internet needs more channels, lower down for working thru foliage.

The 700MHz spectrum sounds like it would work well for this, but it is likely to sell for billions (and possibly just sit empty for years). That isn't really in the price range of most WISPs.

But then I look at the TV channels. Maybe only 1/3 of them are even in use in my area, I think that is typical for most regions. So even without using whitespaces, we might be able to use 30 (!) channels that are currently vacant. Some of the wireless radio makers suggest that a 400MHz AP might work for 10 miles. That would be a huge improvement to offering service. (I am currently building out on grain legs at about 90', trying to cover a 1 -2 mile radius.) The new radios could be customer installed inside the house, instead of having to mount them on the roof.

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

My 3G cell phone seems to manage cable modem like speeds (granted a crappy cable modem connection) but still measured in the ~100 kbytes a second range.

NOTE: speed measured with the blackjack tethered to my laptop.

-x

Re:FCC happens to be right on this one...

[mwilliamson]

50 megabit total bandwidth....hmmm. At work we're sucking down 30-40 megabit on a typical day and we're just 2000 employees. 50 megabit isn't much at all.

Of course it'll cause interference!

[Hoplite3]

They'll have to give up their entertainment monopoly in parts of the country that don't enjoy broadband yet. Then those people won't watch Must See TV, which is interference the way NBC measures it.

Scrap the FCC. Use frequency hopping spread-spectrum devices to avoid interference. Create grid networks for data. Forget telephone, television, etc. Just let me get data. Look, I'd even accept a tiered pricing model: one price for low-latency traffic (voice, games), one price for high-latency traffic (large data downloads).

The "intelligent" network with its walled gardens gets on my nerves.

Re:Of course it'll cause interference!

[Bluesman]

"Scrap the FCC. Use frequency hopping spread-spectrum devices to avoid interference."

You do realize that this would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually working, right?

If there are no restrictions on who can transmit what, whoever transmits the strongest signal wins. It's not going to be you.

Re:Of course it'll cause interference!

[Man On Pink Corner]

If there are no restrictions on who can transmit what, whoever transmits the strongest signal wins. It's not going to be you.

News flash: It's not 1934 anymore.

Good luck "winning" the battle against spread-spectrum process gain.

Airwaves?

[Telvin_3d]

I wonder how many more years it will be before the airwaves are worth more (in terms of dollar value) as a medium for generic data transmission than they are as a medium for a specific technology (TV, radio, cell phone...)

Whitespace is fitting

[Joebert]

Whatpornifpornallpornwhitespaceporninporncommentsp ornwaspornusedpornlikepornthis ?

Re:Whitespace is fitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome

Say What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we're switching to digital broadcasts to free up parts of the spectrum, but then we can't use that part of the spectrum because of potential interference?

Cheap / Fast / Good

[necro81]

Pick Any Two.

I know, I know, the "fast" in that old adage refers to how quickly you want it produced, not how fast the device actually is. This is just a play on the article title.

AT&T owns the FCC

[bobs666]

It is as simple as this: AT&T owns the FCC. The FCC is afraid for some reason to takeaway the money-pit monopoly of the phone company

Yes If we had a proper radio network, built by you and me. The phone company would simply not be needed. There last usefulness for the home user would be obsolete. You cell phone would work better and would not come with a price tag for air time. There would be true competition for access to Internet backbone.

Re:AT&T owns the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

The Telco's are moderating too.

BS Prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think the biggest fear for those broadcasters is, as usual, money : if those bandwidths, which they are given free and exclusive access to by the FTC"

No the biggest fear is ignorance. The digital TV spectrum and the unlicensed spectrum are two different things. The problem is that communications gear obeys the laws of physics and economics i.e. the lowest bidder. Plus one is licensed AND regulated, while the other isn't increasing the odds of interference.

One more nail in the coffin of amateur radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.

Ultra Wide Band will be terrific for local connectivity --- in effect the same niche as Bluetooth but without its performance limitations, or like a more local form of wifi but without its power consumption.

But its very goodness is yet another nail in the coffin of amateur radio datacomms.

The severe and utterly ridiculous restrictions on content/usage mandated by virtually all the regulating bodies worldwide have kept amateur datacomms in an extremely primitive backwater, while their unlicensed friends have enjoyed incredible advances in radio-based consumer electronics without content/usage restrictions.

And radio amateurs can only blame it on themselves, because the majority have always been fanboys of their respective FCC/RA/etc, and regularly opposed moves to free up content/usage licensing restrictions.

And now it's too late, amateur datacomms has become a hobby for fans of retro, instead of being allowed to modify advanced consumer data-radio devices for equally unrestricted use in amateur bands. Too bad.

Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[phreaki]

It's true, TV spectrum is afforded more protection than in areas right now that are being bombarded with unintended RF from the BPL trials. BPL is given almost a 'do what you want' license right now for testing, when the FCC knows it's causing problems.

AT&T, Sprint or whomever wins the auction will provide some form of high speed Internet on that 700mhz pie they won. There's already speeds of greater than 1gbps on the gigaherz spectrum, and claims of 54mbps on around 20mhz of 900mhz.

I'm not going to speculate too much, but I'd garner that with the 700mhz auction coming up, the FCC isn't likely to go 'easy' on any device that uses TV spectrum, lest they scare away record numbers for that auction.

In any case, this partnership helps one key thing: smart radios that pickup and re-use spectrum not being used. There's too much waste, even the cellular companies are guilty of this, and it's the next generation to detect and re-use.

It's time the radios get smarter, and start talking to one another.... coordination by the radios themselves is the only way to assure the spectrum is used all the time.

Rain/snow/brimstone may affect your reception so why can't that be exploited?

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[singingjim1]

Coordination by the radios themselves? The next thing you'll want is some form of mainframe to control all those radios and maybe even some autonomous robots to service the radios that answer only to the mainframe and then maybe you'll want to call it SkyNet and then where will we be? Huh?? Did you think of that??? I didn't think so. I thought the real meat of the story was that the FCC Chairman stated, "...the agency still would like to find a way to transmit high-speed Internet service over the unused airwaves." That being said the next time this story is reported the slashdot headline could read, "The FCC accepts cheap/fast internet device."

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[phreaki]

"SkyNet and then where will we be? Huh?? Did you think of that??? "

Actually, I've already thought of that.

There has already been talk of GPS enabled radios that would monitor for emissions from others and re-adjust channels/frequency automatically without any control. You could call it FCC mandated QOS for radio, and the FCC supplies the list of who get what priority.
Or is the FCC Skynet already?

The real meat of my reply was that the only way 'reusing' spectrum would be feasible is if the radios communicate about interference detected and adjust power levels. Let's face it, with that close of co-channel use, it's reusing spectrum.

  I know just about every radio goes outside it's alloted center frequency. Trouble is, 500mhz can cause problems with 499mhz. If the radio that has secondary intent on the spectrum it's transmitting on and is causing problems, it must be notified and either switch off, or lower emission.

How is the radio going to know it's interferring if it cannot detect the emissions of the main broadcasting tower, nor receive feedback from other radios that could receive both the primary and secondary users of that frequency or co-channel?

Enter Skynet! We'll send big robots in to just crush and destroy the radio instead of using a control channel to let the transmitter know it's causing problems. No FCC visit needed, and the pesky radio will no longer interfere!

Now the headline will be:

"FCC boots Skynet up to control drones, ushering in fast cheap Internet"

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[singingjim1]

Well you've just thought of everything haven't you. Well done. I can't wait until I have my own personal Skynet robot changing the channels for me while "recommending" what I watch on TV and how I surf the new fast, cheap interwebs. Ah, the glory that is progress.

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[smithmc]

  It's time the radios get smarter, and start talking to one another...

Everyone mark your calendars - it was/is on August 10, 2007 that TerraNet, the little-known precursor to SkyNet, was born...

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[the_greywolf]

Everyone mark your calendars - it was/is on August 10, 2007 that TerraNet, the little-known precursor to SkyNet, was born...

... But didn't SkyNet go online 10 years ago last Saturday?

Re:Not a good time to have a device in for testing

[phreaki]

We are dealing with a past and future traveling radio smashing AI.

Nobody knows yet, but that's what the new Terminator movie is gonna be about.

So?

[morari]

Fuck television. I want decent internet up here in the forested hills. The FCC does a great job at smacking down anything that might be useful.

White Space

[Darth Cider]

Check out how much TV spectrum goes unused across the U.S., and not just in rural areas. Unbelievable waste. Does this look like a free-market allocation of resources? Does the FCC realize it is making earnest citizens literally sick with disappointment? How many people would welcome a movement to just seize the airwaves, creating wireless ISPs that don't ask for permission to broadcast? Bring on the interference?

Re:White Space

[ShinmaWa]

Does the FCC realize it is making earnest citizens literally sick with disappointment? A medical breakthrough! I'm really impressed. The FCC is spreading illness throughout the country and using "disappointment" as the disease carrier.

I just hope that my ex-girlfriend doesn't find out about this, or I'll be a goner.

Re:White Space

[jmanforever]

OK, I did check out this site. They don't seem to have all of their facts checked out quite right.

For instance, I checked out the report for the Omaha Nebraska market, since I am familiar with the area. (I live in central NE)

There is white space on the VHF band on channels 5, 11, & 13. You can't just put new signals on those channels in Omaha, because it would cause interference in the next market to the West, Lincoln NE. Lincoln gets channel 5 from Hastings, channel 11 from Grand Island, and Channel 13 from Axtell/Kearney. (Although to be honest, Channel 11 in G.I. is nothing more than a 300KW translator for Channel 10 in Lincoln.)

There is a VALID REASON why there is white space in some markets.

Re:White Space

[the_greywolf]

I was actually quite surprised that, while performing a nation-wide cross-spectrum interference study of the FM radio band, the entire nation is *shockingly* bare. (Clark Parrish and I changed that somewhat by using that information to submit 4221 FM translator applications, but it's still surprisingly sparse, even post-Radio Assist Ministry.) We even accounted for 2-channel and 3-channel interference patterns, and still found numerous very large areas on every channel.

I'd be very surprised indeed if the same was not true of TV stations.

Re:White Space

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no RF engineer, but you mention Omaha can't use channel 5 because of a station in Hastings. And you mention a 300KW station in Lincoln - is that a typical TV broadcast power? The kinds of gear that we are hoping for is in the 10 watt range. It is 160 miles from Omaha to Hastings. Don't you think the high power tv station would obliterate the 10 watt Internet box for maybe 140 miles of that? Especially with the new digital signals, I would hope that the new tv tuner could pick out the signal better.

Ham radio vs. TV

[Valdrax]

The difference is how many people care about the two. Ham radio operators are mostly obscure hobbyists that most of the people in charge of the FCC may have never had any encounter with. Terrestrial broadcast TV watchers are a bit more ubiquitous, and so the FCC cares about them more. Plus, they tend to be from an elderly demographic that's a bit more politically active, especially in terms of contacting officials and donating to campaigns.

It's really no surprise that the FCC can brush one of them off but have to pay attention to the other.

Re:Ham radio vs. TV

[DigitalReverend]

First both are federally licensed, and the law is clear, that radio devices shall not interfere with licensed services.

Second, in times of emergency, amateur radio operators are the people who Television and Radio stations, civil defense, police and fire departments turn to, when the taxpayer funded communication infrastructure fails.

The amateur radio service are like car insurance. People would like to forget about it, but when you need it it's a good thing that you have it.

73,
KI8JC

Re:Ham radio vs. TV

[Valdrax]

Yadda yadda. You're talking about the law and valuable services that ham radio operators provide.

Meanwhile, we were talking about favoritism and why the FCC was willing to ignore every single point you just brought up for broadband over power lines and not for the new wireless devices which inconveniences TV instead.

Re:Ham radio vs. TV

[cthulhu11]

Both remaining hams will likely be dead within 5 years anyway.

FCC trys to postpone inevitable death, RIAA style

[one0them]

The fcc is trying to postpone their inevitable end by trying to maintain their unconstitutional choke hold on Americans' free speech. Of course the RIAA have been trying to maintain their chokehold (albeit constitutional) on music, and this is their excuse for alienating their customers, and committing financial suicide.

If RIAA wanted to stay in business, they would work on getting their musicians songs (concert advertisements) exposure, not trying to cover them up, and litigate their customers.

If the FCC wanted to avoid being trampled by pirate data transmitters, they would end the unconstitutional practice of licensing free speech, and set down some standard ground-rules about amplitude (dependent on number of transmitters nearby), not jamming thy neighbor, standard protocol (mesh), and network neutrality.

But instead, the federal censorship commission has opted to die slowly as the airwaves turn into an invariable screaming match amongst TV stations, and pirate internet broadcasters. soon it will not be uncommon to see an antenna throwing lightning bolts whenever it is humid or rainy, we will have to Faraday cage everything, and everything is gonna hum. What interesting times we live in.

BTW: you can still buy soviet 1 kilowatt, = 1 megahertz triodes on ebay for like 25 bucks. 10 otta do it, and one burly generator.

Creating A National Threat! (was: Re:no problem)

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you up the frequency until out of the first block of TV channels (2-4), you interfere with wireless hearing aids."

Whoa! Can't do that! How would Bush make an even remotely coherent speech!

Easy fix for interference concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

However, TV broadcasters oppose usage of white spaces because they fear the device will cause interference with television programming and could cause problems with a federally mandated transition from analog to digital signals in February 2009.

Just put junk like Lifetime, Oxygen, Opera and all the reality shows next to the white spaces. If there is any interference, nobody with any intelligence to notice will be watching those channels.

Bad Conspiracy Theory, Try Again

[Bri3D]

While I'm sure there is "pressure" from teleco lobbyists on the FCC commissioners and I'm sure this does affect a lot of their decisions (lobbyists "affect" read: pay money for every decision in US government today), I don't think BPL is the best case for you to use for your conspiracy theories. BPL is really, truly flawed. Think about it. You're transmitting high-frequency signals over giant unshielded wires. You are basically sending high-frequency data through an enormous antenna. The interference potential is *huge*, and it shouldn't be allowed to spread unchecked. There are strategies for minimizing interference but they make it so slow as to be pointless.

The Real Problem with Whitespace Devices

[TheSync]

The real problem with "whitespace" devices is intermodulation interference. Just because there isn't a signal in a "whitespace" doesn't mean that if you transmit there that your signal won't mix with other signals in receivers to create intermodulation noise.

Unlicensed signals on first adjacent channels next to DTV signals may generate third-order intermodulation product noise in DTV receivers.

There is nothing wrong with trying to set up "intelligent radio" unlicensed systems in their own band, but putting them adjacent to DTV channels is not a good idea.

More info:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.1598.ht ml
http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.2005.ht ml

Re:The Real Problem with Whitespace Devices

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is possible to cause these issues, if that statement were patently true then TV stations would cause interference with each other. If a signal only uses a portion of the adjacent channel then it can operate without interference. Furthermore in the rural areas that much of this is targetted at 2nd and even 3rd adjacent channels are wide open.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/publications/documents/pett y2007_Dyspan07.pdf
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/quan tifying_the_impact_of_unlicensed_devices_on_digita l_tv_receivers

Re:The Real Problem with Whitespace Devices

[TheSync]

While it is possible to cause these issues, if that statement were patently true then TV stations would cause interference with each other.

Indeed, it is very likely that there are lots of "hidden" intermodulation problems with the existing scheme for DTV channel packing. We may know a lot more after February, 2009, when more "eyes" will be looking at the problem.

That's because it wasn't any good

[karlandtanya]

Pick 2!

Nope.

[antdude]

I don't have cable and satellite TV. I still use rabbit ear and bowtie antennae to get local channels for free. :)

Kill TV - Wireless Everywhere - TV on Wireless

[eyebits]

In the long run it would be better to kill TV altogether, use the spectrum to provide wireless Internet everywhere and then provide "TV" over the wireless Internet connections.

2004:FCC Seeks TV 'White Space' Spectrum for Wi-Fi

[foobsr]

Quote: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to let wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) to operate in unused spectrum space currently occupied by TV broadcasters. The proposal is aimed at giving consumers an alternative to cable and telecom broadband providers."

???

CC.

Problem is, they ARE evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC have proven time and time again that they are in the telcos' back pockets. Anybody can rig a test to fail, or deny spectrum access on a marginal reading of an oscilloscope. You'll never know the truth, because they'll change the truth to fit the outcome they want. It'll be he-said, she-said between the FCC testers and the product engineers. Besides, anyone in a marginal area for HD broadcast won't get a picture worth watching anyway. That's the big joke, signal loss is much worse than for regular TV. So who cares whether shitty reception degrades another 2%. It's a non issue.

The reason we'll never have decent wide-area Web access is that it hurts the telcos. Anything that hurts the telcos won't fly with the FCC. Just remember: what's good for Verizon and AT&T is good for America. Oh, I almost forgot: you mustn't say the Seven Unspeakable Words on TV. That's bad, too. Sure, you can show a close-up of a mad maniacal sadist chain-sawing the intestines out of a co-ed in slow motion, that's fine. But God forbid you utter a wordy-turd.

Re:Problem is, they ARE evil

[Agent Green]

I don't believe you forgot to mention the horrors of female breasts ... shame on you! Think of the children!

Re:Problem is, they ARE evil

[heinousjay]

Sure, you can show a close-up of a mad maniacal sadist chain-sawing the intestines out of a co-ed in slow motion, that's fine.

What channel do you watch? This sounds like a great show!

Re:Problem is, they ARE evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe you forgot to mention the horrors of female breasts ... shame on you! Think of the children!

Look, he is thinking the same thing I am. Yeah, dinner!

That part of the movie should be put on endless replay for the FCC and assorted holier then thou pushers of censorhip.

Fcc has turned into a GREEDY monster.

[zymano]

Something needs to be done about it. The public and nonspecial interests need to use another strategy like SUING them to open up. The Fcc is definitely hoarding for the gov & $$Wealthy$$ and we are not getting our share. Those airwaves are like air : They belong to us. The interference problem can be handles way better with better smarter radios. We right now are WASTING our airwaves. Another problem with private ownership is what happens when a crisis strikes like the bridge collapse in Minnesota. No one could use their stupid cellphone.

Re:Interference Prevention - Redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is parent redundant?

Question.

[jez9999]

It seems like a lot of the problems with wireless spectrum are caused by legacy issues.

Suppose you were able to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. Would it not be possible to get a significant extra amount of use out of the spectrum if it were designed as one big network, 100% digital?

This is such BULL**IT!

[Newer Guy]

The National Association of Broadcasters lobbying efforts (read: BRIBERS!) have paid off again for them! It would ahve been VERY EASY to buid in a receiver that listens on the channel to make sure nothing's there before transmitting. Twenty dollar WIFI routers even do this. In fact, this would be a DESIRABLE feature. By doing this there would BE no interference-NOTHING!!

Instead, the FCC has once again overprotected the big bucks incumbent users of the PUBLIC airwaves from the PUBLIC!

The FCC needs to be abolished. They are a place where friends of political hacks can get big buck patronage jobs-nothing more. It has long outlived its usefulness.

Re:Creating A National Threat! (was: Re:no problem

[fbartho]

They could tether him with a nice and visible wire, and have people on stage at the other end of the leash... maybe people would start to get the hint? Of course with our luck people would just think him brave for admitting he's a puppet.

Heh

[Bobb Sledd]

I hear people balking at a $25.00 cable bill. heh.

My cable bill last month was just over $178.00 USD.

Yeah, OK, so I have the package with digital phone, internet access, a DVR/cable box rental, every single channel (and every premium channel they have to offer)...

The funny thing is... I'm never home to watch it :-/

Local advertising

[Fred Ferrigno]

Local advertising is the reason a-la-carte cable will never happen. Your local cable co can sell advertising on all those channels you'd rather not pay for. If you can't shut it off, chances are you'll watch them every once in a while rather than never. Some channels are paid for almost entirely by ad revenue, so there's no reason not to give them to you.

Traditional Broadcast Television is Doomed

[greenlead]

Apparently, the FCC has not yet realized that traditional broadcast television -- other than for hobbiest purposes -- will not exist beyond the next decade. As evidenced by the success of the TIVO and other DVR devices, consumers want to choose what they see and when they see it, which is incompatible with the broadcast method. Since the existing television spectrum won't be used anyway in a few years, what's the big deal?

Faster than a speeding lobby-ist

[Rockin'Robert]

Frickin' Corruption and Collusion inc.
FCC'' bass-ackward "fast" = 'line of sight' analogue CB slam poetry relays in the 21st century?
RR