Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
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.
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).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
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.
www.wavefront-av.com
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't think DVB is the worry. Analog interference is, and with the power required, even DVB can be overpowered and interfered with.
Video Production Support
For more information, this (pdf) chart is pretty nice (US only). It's a little outdated (Oct 2003).
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.
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.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
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
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.