Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TV White Space & The Future of Wireless Broadband

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

DeviceGuru writes "The unoccupied radio spectrum between broadcast TV channels may soon become a source of low-cost, ubiquitous broadband connectivity. Earlier this month, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission began Phase II testing of 'white space device' prototypes, to determine whether WSDs can operate without interfering with the other wireless devices commonly used in homes, offices, and public locations. A key advantage of white space wireless technology, compared to the combination of WiFI and WiMAX, is its TV-like ability to cover broad areas and penetrate walls and trees, using relatively low power levels."

6 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Great, another choice for those who have lots by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, way to RTFA. "White space" technology transmits in the gaps between broadcast TV channels. If anything, you have more potential bandwidth available than those who live in a city where many TV channels are used.

    --
    ttuttle is a rankmaniac
  2. Why is it called "white" space? by niceone · · Score: 1, Funny

    Surely it's black if there's nothing there? Doesn't "white" mean filled with all kinds of frequencies, as in white noise? I suppose if you think of the spectrum as a sheet of paper...

    --
    ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
  3. Whitespace? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this is a bad idea. If we start transmitting data in whitespace, words will become very difficult to distinguish from each other in any given sentence. For example "The quick red fox jumped over the brown lazy dog." by itself, is very readable. But once you transmit extra data in the whitespace it becomes: "The1quick0red1fox0jumped1over0the0brown1lazy0dog." - An invariable piece of shit. It's only a matter of time before the greedy providers decide they need more bandwidth and bleed over in to the primary data stream.

    Now if we were to transmit in the margins or between the lines, that may just work!

  4. Practical value? by Firehed · · Score: 5, Funny

    TV, unlike the internet, is a one-way medium. My TV may be able to pick up signals from a giant transmitter thirty miles away, and that's great. How would this work for internet connections? Something tells me that putting an antenna powerful enough to reach back to that tower inside my laptop isn't going to be too friendly with my battery life, let alone my non-shielded nuts.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    1. Re:Practical value? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 5, Funny

      antenna powerful enough to reach back to that tower inside my laptop isn't going to be too friendly with my battery life, let alone my non-shielded nuts.
      It's nothing to worry about. From the FCC site: "Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be able to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the future purchase of eligible testicle and ovary shields. Eligible testicle and ovary shields are for the conversion of non-shielded testicles and ovaries, and therefore are not intended for anuses connected to a paid provider such as cable or satellite TV service."
  5. Re:Great, another choice for those who have lots by wampus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Satellite's latency is horrible. Light isn't nearly as fast as it seems.