Slashdot Mirror
FCC Will Test Internet Over TV Airwaves, Again
Weather Storm writes "According to MSNBC.com, the FCC will try again to test prototypes on Jan. 24 for transmitting high-speed Internet service over unused television airwaves. The devices were developed by Microsoft and Motorola, among other corporate partners, and will be tested in laboratory and real-world conditions for three months. 'Last year, a high-technology coalition — which included Microsoft, Google Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel Corp. among others — submitted prototypes they said could transmit broadband Internet service over unlicensed and unused TV spectrum, known as "white spaces." Television broadcasters and the wireless microphone industry say such devices could interfere with programming. The Initial prototype testing failed last July because the devices did not reliably detect and avoid TV programming signals and could have caused interference. If the tests are successful this time and the devices are approved, the coalition plans to introduce commercial devices for sale after the digital television transition in February 2009.'"
Innocent TV watchers were bothered by flickering images of the internet appearing on their TV.
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
TV broadcasts use a fairly wide frequency band. Just define one small part that is restricted to just TV, and make sure there is no signal on that portion, then use the rest. Of course, you have to recheck periodically, as there may still be some stations that go off the air at night, and you would need to stop using that frequency when they come back on.
"The Initial prototype testing failed last July because the devices did not reliably detect and avoid TV programming signals and could have caused interference."
And? How many people use tv on rabbit ears vs the number of people with laptops. Sorry TV ala 1930s you have been bested no one has loved you for 30years.
That's a really neat idea. If properly implemented, that would significantly expand wireless internet coverage to just about anywhere in the nation. It would definitely help for people who travel a lot. Still, the initial test failures such as not recognizing normal TV signals makes me wonder. If they could figure out how to properly detect regular TV and avoid it, this could be a definite advance in connectivity.
Weaksauce as they say...
So using 'white space' will provide better internet services to cows and stuff?
"He Who Dares Wins"
Can you even imagine handling TV signal detection in an are like the Northeast Corridor? Anywhere from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME there are so friggin many channels that when you include out-of-DMA channels there simply is no real white space.
Understand that a channel in the eastern US can be reasonably expected to be detectable up to 100 miles away. For example, I live in central Pennsylvania, and even without atmospheric effects with a decent antenna I can get channels from eastern Ohio.
Point being that the device is going to pick up a lot of channels. Also, since it is presumed to be mobile, that device will have to shift channels.
Channel-shifting is where the real nightmare occurs, especially in cities. With path interference, you have total signal dead zones that are three feet away from strong signal. The device could pick a channel, celebrate and start transmitting right into a zone where there would be perfect TV reception and never be able to detect it because of a dead zone.
Trying to avoid this sort of interference in a practical application is impossible.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
A lot of companies in rural areas won't bother running what really amounts to the last mile of lines needed for DSL and cable. The reason is simple -- they will never recover the cost of running the line.
Presently, asynchronous satellite service is the only rural high speed internet available.
A ground-based synchronous wireless system circumvents some of that trouble, but the TV signals are sitting in the only bandwidth useful for reaching down into valleys. The truth is, VHF channels 7 and 8 are the plum spots. They have great range. They are at a low enough freqeuncy that they curve with the shape of the earth, while being high enough that they don't just suck in nearby electrical interference.
TV sits in the coveted spot.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Isn't that basically what the upcoming spectrum auction is about, transmitting data over unused TV licenses? Except in this case, of course, the FCC doesn't get to collect $billions for the privilege, and Microsoft et al get a free pass to use basically the same resources that the teclos are getting ready to write big checks for. Sounds like the FCC is not meeting its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, uh, I mean constituents.
I wish there was more information about all of this. Specifically, I wish the FCC would be able to give us a template for the upcoming changes to all forms of bandwidth and how they are intended to be used in the future.
I remember something a fear years ago about the switch to HDTV somehow opening up a range frequencies on the FM dial, and the FCC talking about maybe loosening restrictions on licensing for broadcast in the FM spectrum. I haven't re-heard any of that since.
I also remember, while I was studying the use of power lines as FM transmitters (apparently the signal is periodically flattened, though, by the transformers), the FCC mentioning something about using the power lines to double as internet. This was just after the DSL market leveled off, I remember. Anyways, there was a lot of talk about how to get that done, and special switches to go around transformers, or something. I haven't re-heard any of that, either.
I never liked DSL, btw. It seemed like the public was being duped into agreeing that they have no business using modems that fast without paying the phone companies for compensation. That's my impression based on the way the phone companies handled 14.4s and 28.8s. With 14.4s they started saying "you need to tell us if you are using your phone line for data communications; there's an extra fee." They tried to justify that by saying the fee paid for keeping the line more free of noise, which simply wasn't true. I remember a number of SysOps actually letting the phone companies know they were running BBSs off their low-calling-plan phone lines: they still had just as many checksum errors as they ever did, usually because they lived in the rural areas. Then when 28.8s came out, the phone companies started it all over again, except this time their gripe was that the higher throughput was a drain on the company's resources and they needed proper compensation, and threatened that if they found anybody was using their phone line for data without telling them, they would automatically flip you into the higher-paying mode. My impression then was that enough businesses and day-traders had told the company they were using their lines for data and ponied up the extra charge, but found that their signal wasn't any less noisy than usual, and got pissed and complained. Anyways, then DSL came out, and it was the same thing all over again, except that this time the phone companies had the jump on the technology and the right to use it on their lines. They were especially tight-fisted with who's allowed to so much as own a DSL modem, or if they couldn't manage to monopolize that market they were working out exchanges that required the company's leased and serialed modems. I have a question about that; when everybody's onto coaxial and the phone lines aren't being used for data any more, what will all of the "extra bandwidth" there be used for? Not voice: too many people are using cellphones for even their most casual home use, it's just more practical. What good will the phone lines be to us once they aren't getting used?
About the TV band again. I started reading up on it and learned that Japan had gone digital TV quite some time ago, but was still using the same airspace; they just managed to use compression to fit around two digital channels into the same bandwidth as one of our analogues. Why didn't America ever go into that same system, given how much Americans love both television and varieties? It seemed obvious to me, some time later, that twice as many channels are twice as hard to corner and monopolise. Some may say that deals couldn't be worked out so that manufacturers believed Americans would go out and buy replacement sets; but I still say any deal with a lucrative outcome eventually gets made by somebody, and it was simply obviously more lucrative to keep things tight-gripped rather than allow the market to be widened. We still have our "Big 3" today even though things have changed oh-so-much; when the hell are those disinfo mouthpieces going to fail and just go away?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I've just signed up for fiber optic to the home. My TV signal is now getting delivered over my internet connection as IPTV - which should free up the TV spectrum to deliver internet - which I can then get IPTV on.
I think my head hurts. But I'm pretty sure we invented perpetual motion somewhere in there.
I hope I am wrong about this, but if the internet gets transmitted over TV airwaves, wouldn't the FCC automatically gain authority to censor anything they dislike or dictate is 'offensive' -- just like they do with television and radio in America?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Yes, I know Microsoft makes money on BD, but from recent articles here, it looks like they may well lose and take a bath on HD DVD.
Market associates BD with Sony and Apple, HD DVD with Microsoft.
This isn't about the internet over TV airwaves.
This is about Microsoft leveraging their new HD knowledge to reuse that bath water to one-up the ease of use and delivery of iTMS movies and the Apple TV Take 2. And it's about giving their DRM a new life for a hegemony.
They're never going to catch up (hell, as if I _know_ this), with the iPod because the Zune and their DRM had egg on it. Their HD DVD is going to have egg on it. In any emerging market, you get the opportunity to be early and win big or lose big.
Microsoft does not want to lose big in HDTV like they did and are in digital music.
This is about Microsoft HDTV and Microsoft DRM. Mark my words.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Satellite internet has horrible terms of service - and serious latency issues. Cellular providers cover many under-server rural areas now - I was pleased to learn of the option. It doesn't have the inhibitive installation cost of satellite service either. I'm connecting with speed between 700 and 1000kbps - with downloads speeds around 120kbps/upload speeds around 20kbps. The service is 29.99 unlimited (doesn't count against airtime minutes/no caps) using a tethered phone or 59.99 per month unlimited using a wireless USB modem. It's performs well - I've experienced no outages in over a month of use. Anyone more knowledgeable - the cellular broadband is a type of radio service? Is this something more like a "mesh" network?
Are they going to have repeaters all over the place or just one antenna. If just one antenna they are going to need a lot of power. Some UHF channels run a megawatt. Plus, where does the uplink go? Through the phone lines?
I must be really dense. How the heck does over-the-air TV broadcast get anything from the home back to the net? Dialup?
Infuriate left and right
"TV sits in the coveted spot."
The only problems I see with using the TV bands is that the internet is bidirectional and there's the issue of total bandwith. Tv works because it's one to many. Internet works because it's many to many and scalable. WiMax is suppose to address the last mile anyway.
I hate to tell you all, but this space is NOT unused. Wireless microphones have been using this space for YEARS.
If internet access goes out over TV frequencies, does this give an "in" for the FCC to control internet content?
Which ISP is providing this service?
We have pasty.com here in very rural Michigan, they're using WiFi and a RADIUS server for stationary wireless customers. Each transmitter covers, at most, 100 houses. It works great with a cantenna if you're within a half mile of the antenna. Farther than that, the cube function kills it.
What technology are you using?
I work in this field for one of the corporations involved in this work with the FCC, and am involved in cognitve radio for TVWS work. If you do a search of the internet using the phrase "cognitive radio" you will get a better idea for how the systems will work. There will be lots of small access points (initial generations of the systems will be about the size of a cigar box). Mobile stations (endpoints such as phones) will function in one of two modes, either tethered or in peer-to-peer.
The trick to make it work cleanly is geo-location information being available to the devices (mobile stations, access points, et cetera) and a map/database of known (authorized) transmitters in the TVWS frequency range in the areas. Its also highly likely that policy-based management and autonomics will come into play to control the mobile stations and the access points.
This is a big deal folks, it will revolutionize the way we comunicate and interact with each other and world around us. Look for papers authored by Joseph Mitola (DARPA Scientist who coined the phrase "cognitive radio") -- the guy is truly a visionary.
It seems to me that they are (still) dying to make the internet a one-to-many model like traditional tv and radio. Sure, you upload requests, but this technology clearly could not handle a high "up" bandwidth.
expandfairuse.org
Cellular telephones use digital radio signals divided into "channels". One channel gets you a cellular-quality digital voice signal. Cellular broadband is just transmitting IP over 2 or 4 of those same channels.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
TV channels 2-6 will be the biggest waste of spectrum in the history of broadcasting. Within the continental USA, there will be 29 DTV stations in this 30 mHz of prime spectrum. There will not be a single channel six in the entire state of California! There will be five channel sixes in the entire eastern half of the USA! This utter waste of spectrum is appaling!
This system will work decently. Spread spectrum radio is common today in your cell phone, your wireless house phone, and every wifi card everywhere. the concept of a defined frequency for a defined service is on the way out. Much like DC electricity, it was used for a lot of reasons, but as time goes on, a smart radio system will become common. The six megahertz needed for an analog signal is today like using a steam engine for commuter rail. You can do it, and it works, but it's not a clean or simple solution. With the advent of microchips and strict time sequences, cognitive radio is an easy deal. It also solves the problems of too many users for a limited amount of discrete frequencies. the idea of frequency allocation is because up until now, you could only be one per frequency. The prime real estate was given to TV way, way back when. It is no longer 1940. TV has some interference issues when the band opens, but you are dealing with megawatt transmitters in prime locations...I can get Philly when conditions are right here in NYC, but that's not "the market". Leaving the white spaces unused is like deciding that Ohio can't grow corn because Wisconsin is.
Remember how the porn channels came in as that garbled mess that you couls still identify some stuff. Imagine the possiblity that you are surfing the net in the other room and your significant other changes the channel to say channel 69 and finds that you are looking at porn. What do you do?!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Personally, I don't want my gaming sessions interrupted by commercials every 10-15 minutes. ;p
-Eric
While the WSC wants to use the white space for wireless broadband, Cellcos Sprint and T-Mobile want whites spaces for wireless backhaul, and are willing to pay for a fixed license. In todays economy, will the FCC be pressured by Congress to get some money for this spectrum? Seems like it would be a waste to use this valuable spectrum for a cellco's backhaul.