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

[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: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.

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.

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: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.

Whitespace is fitting

[Joebert]

Whatpornifpornallpornwhitespaceporninporncommentsp ornwaspornusedpornlikepornthis ?

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: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...