Slashdot Mirror
Free Wireless Band Gets FCC OK
narramissic writes "Last month the FCC conducted tests to determine whether mobile devices using a new US radio band (2,155 to 2,175 MHz) with free wireless service would cause significant interference with cell phones using a nearby band. Now, the results are in and in a report released Friday, the FCC concluded that 'the analysis shows that an AWS-1 and AWS-3 device operating in close proximity does not necessarily result in interference.' Still, T-Mobile accuses the FCC of basing its conclusions on new assumptions that weren't used when the tests took place. But at least one party is happy: M2Z praised the report, saying 'There is no longer any need for American consumers, the public interest and the FCC's regulatory process to be held hostage as it has been for the last five months by incumbent carriers... who have used unfounded claims of interference to disguise their intent to prevent the introduction of new broadband competition in the AWS-3 band.'"
...well that's one concrete result. in other words:
rain does net necessarily result in getting wet. (see here for methods of not getting wet.)
All competition is good but really its not really that great. Their internet will be censored and it will only be 300kb/s. It certainly can't hurt but really there is two sides to this story. It really wouldn't be worth the hassle for this somewhat mediocre internet if it causes interference with cell phones.
Price notwithstanding, I guess it won't be entirely free...
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Yeah. Upon reading that phrase 'does not necessarily result in interference', I actually thought 'well, straight sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily result in the female getting pregnant, either, but it happens often enough to cause people use protection.'
My blog
As long as they keep the cost below $700 billion....
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Well, I just took a gander at the actual FCC OET report, and I'm not buying it. Here's why:
1. It was a bench test. Nice, but if you really want to stand up to any REAL interference, the only way you're going to find out what's wrong is to put it up in a live environment (such as what they were doing in Reno).
2. The report acknowledges omissions of several variables that WILL affect emissions when the system goes live. That's a disqualifier right there.
3. The speed of publication. I find it very hard to accept such a hastily written report about a bench test coming from OET when they still haven't figured out what's going on with the 700 MHz band.
And to think, I could have been working with these guys. Glad I decided to look elsewhere for employment. Sheesh.
Yeah. Upon reading that phrase 'does not necessarily result in interference', I actually thought 'well, straight sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily result in the female getting pregnant, either, but it happens often enough to cause people use protection.'
So are you saying we should wrap condoms around wireless microphones to prevent interference? =P
Not to worry, poor telecommunications giants! Lobbyman is here to protect you! The evil FCC got you down? No problem, Lobbyman will buy off Congress to step in an save your gravy train! Sure Lobbyman is expensive, but then a great hero always is. So let the money flow and let the consumer be screwed!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
thats just good hygiene
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
One simple issue is this : there are a stupendous number of wireless devices manufactured and sold. Some are software defined, such that a simple change of firmware will cause the radio to transmit on disallowed spectrum.
Perhaps these devices should be heavily engineered to deal with interference more than depending on FCC regulations to prevent it. Among other things, two devices on the exact same spectrum are almost always located a physical distance apart. Phased array antennae can be used to distinguish between the two, and the base station using such an antenna can then beam an individual reply packet to each distinct device.
Have you heard them? They are loud and awesome! And thanks to the FCC's approval, maybe they will get more air time too! {* Rock Hands! *}
(uh... no, I didn't RTFA... why do you ask?)
And antivirus protection
So the new free wireless band is 2155-2175. PCS is 1850-1990. Satellite radio is 2320-2345, marginally closer to the new free wireless band than that band is to PCS. Wouldn't satellite radio have more to lose? Sirius and XM users already have to receive a relatively weak signal broadcast from thousands of miles away in outer space by antennas with built in LNA's. Have sufficient studies been done to prove that nearby operation in the new free wireless band will not desense sensitive satellite radio receivers and preclude them from receiving an acceptable signal?
I agree. The FCC is "off" on this decision.
I'm afraid I'm going to lose my over-the-air DTV reception. I can easily imagine the girl next door going for a jog & turning-on her whitespace-enabled Ipod to stream Miley Cyrus radio. Then all my Washington D.C. stations will disappear since her Ipod will think those are open channels. That's just great; just wonderful; how brilliant of the FCC Chair to damage free television.
Since OTA viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83, let the white space gadgets use the space. There's no need to interfere with channels 2 to 51.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
They tested on lots of phones but found only the iPhone to not work correctly. For some reason, your music will all come out sounding like DEVO remixes.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Exactly my thinking. The problem is that the FCC is making decisions without proper and careful scientific measurement of the data. This is just plain crooked. I blame the fact that consumers have been duped into accepting poor quality is the norm. Look at how much cell phones and smart phones suck ass. NO ONE would have accepted these products in the mid 20th century. Can you imagine what would have happened to Bell telephone in the 1960s and 1970s if customers had conversations dropping in the middle with no explanation? No one seems to expect companies to strive for perfection these days. "So what if it interferes a little with a few people here or there. That's 'highly unlikely' and where it happens it's only one or two people"! No more quality I tell you. I'm starting to sound like my inlaws...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
broadband and broadband choices in small towns, and in rural America. While the big companies squabble over market shares in the big cities, Ma and Pa Kettle are left with waving a blanket over a smokey fire. The ISPs really need to look at the idea of nation wide coverage. I am an American, and I can only READ about high speed internet!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That's the problem - interference. I'm afraid I will lose over-the-air reception. I can easily imagine the girl next door going for a jog with her whitespace-enabled Ipod streaming Miley Cyrus radio. As a result some of my Washington D.C. stations will disappear, since her Ipod incorrectly believes those are open channels. Lousy decision.
Since OTA viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83, let the white space gadgets use that space. There's no need to interfere with channels 2 to 51.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Plus, the wire screen of many microphones can be kinda scratchy....oh wait, you were using the microsophone for talking into, right?
My blog
No. I think he was saying we should wear condoms on our heads to prevent rain from interfering with our satellite receivers. Probably over the tin foil hats though.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
yea, it's just too bad you don't own the airwaves. the radio spectrum is a shared public resource--a limited resource at that. therefor, the FCC made the right decision by choosing public interest over corporate interest (or in your case, an incredibly small minority interest).
i highly doubt this ruling will suddenly cripple all DTV broadcasts, but even if it did, it's still preferable to have a free wireless broadband data network over a free DTV network. why limit this UHF spectrum to DTV broadcasts when using it to extend broadband infrastructure would provide much more public utility? the major TV networks can stream video/audio over the internet, which the public can receive using free wireless, but limiting this spectrum to DTV broadcasts would not allow the public to access the web, internet radio, streaming video, VoIP, and the endless list of other applications an open/public network like the internet enables.
it may be an inconvenience to you that you cannot receive DTV signals from far outside of their broadcast area, but that's hardly a reason to impede technological progress. stop thinking so small and try to see the bigger picture here.
right now a handful of cellular carriers and telecoms hold a complete monopoly on telecommunications with their proprietary communication networks. because of this, they can charge extortionate rates while providing shoddy service. they also have complete control over what devices can connect to their networks and, because their business model depends on it, purposely cripple consumer handsets (such as disabling the use of mp3s as ringtones to force subscribers to buy them from their carrier at jacked up prices), hindering the development of new and potentially useful cellular applications (e.g. video calls or much earlier adoption of mobile TV).
compare this with the progress of the internet/web over the same amount of time. anyone can develop their own applications on the internet because of its open nature. this has fueled innovation and spurred the growth of the web as an application platform. frankly, the internet provides much more benefit & utility to the average person than closed/proprietary telecom, TV, and radio networks. and as a generalized digital communication network, the internet is capable of filling the roles of all of the above specialized proprietary networks. you can already make & receive calls using VoIP (and even video calls with VVoIP), and internet radio offers a much more diversified range of music than the Clear-Channel-dominated FM radio. the public also has access to a lot more video content on the internet than with traditional terrestrial broadcasts.
heck, you can broadcast your own internet video stream and run your own "TV" channel once all of these parallel (and redundant) proprietary networks are absorbed by the internet. the internet allows regular individuals to be content producers rather than just consumers. this decentralization of content distribution has resulted in a democratization of the media. and once we have a nationwide public wireless infrastructure, internet media will be able to go anywhere that TV/radio can go today--and much further.
You are comparing two different things. For television and radio, they each have a public and private version, over-the-air television vs. cable tv and over-the-air radio vs. XM satellite radio. In both cases, the two "networks" are for the most part mutually exclusive with the exception that the private networks may carry public content on their networks but not the reverse.
On the other hand, there is one internet. Whether it's public internet access or private internet access both still connect to the same internet. The other thing is with over-the-air television and radio you are required to have a broadcast license with the FCC. Are you suggesting that every content provider on the internet should have such a license because it can be accessed via public internet access? Or are you suggesting that the provider of public internet access should be responsible for the content of the internet? In the private sector, it has already been determined that network service providers cannot be responsible for the how their networks are used much less for the content on the internet. It follows that one could not expect the same from a public internet access provider for the same reasons. It is simply not possible for the provider to filter their network traffic because clever users will always find a way around it.
We can take this logic a step further and ask whether all public places of business that have no age restriction and offer free WIFI access have to censor their internet access because a child could potentially view porn through their internet connection.
Personally, I consider the internet something you use at your own risk. I also think the same responsibility that lies with the parents to be aware of and use appropriate measures to filter the internet using private internet access also applies to using public internet access.
I also sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that a separate public internet be created because it would essentially be useless. People would complain about not being able to access their mail accounts and favorite web sites etc. etc. You really don't want to go back to the days of Compuserve and AOL 1.0 *shudder* do you?
We'll make great pets
Here's a video produced by the National Association of Broadcasters that shows what happens when somebody uses a "white space" gadget to connect to the internet on-top of an existing station:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/video-show-congress-white-space-interference-1014/
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Here's a video produced by the National Association of Broadcasters that shows what happens when somebody uses a "white space" gadget to connect to the internet on-top of an existing station:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/video-show-congress-white-space-interference-1014/
I hope Congress does the right thing and turns-down the use of these devices on channels 2-to-51. I don't want my television viewing to devolve to the poor interference displayed in the video.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
>>>yea, it's just too bad you don't own the airwaves. the radio spectrum is a shared public resource--
That's no excuse for broadcasting over top of existing NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, MyNetTV, PBS, Ion, et cetera television channels. Those of us who rely on over-the-air television already gave-up channels 52 to 83 for cellphones and wireless internet. Stop being so "entitled" and greedy. Leave channels 2 to 51 alone!
>
>>>it may be an inconvenience to you that you cannot receive DTV signals from far outside of their broadcast area
I'm NOT outside my broadcast area. I'm inside Washington D.C.'s designated area, but it just so happens that signals are weak here. I can get them so long as nobody turns-on an interfering transmitter (like a white space gadget).
>
>>> stop thinking so small and try to see the bigger picture here.
You first. I don't think I should have to give-up my access to live television (and tornado or other storm warnings) just so you can download some porn. There's plenty of other bands you could use. How about channels 52 to 83 - use them.
Leave channels 2 to 51 alone.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
>>>it's still preferable to have a free wireless broadband data network over a free DTV network.
Feldercarb. How am I supposed to get tornado or other storm warnings if my DTV doesn't work??? Free over-the-air DTV warnings & alerts that SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES are *far* more important than the ability to stream Miley Cyrus radio with your Iwidget.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
From interferencezones.com: If these companies get their wish, you could be watching the big game, your favorite movie or breaking news when your pristine digital picture freezes, pixelates and the sound shuts off. Not exactly the ideal way to watch television.
My digital channels do that randomly now. Yeah, it's probably a Charter cable problem and not interference, but it's irritating as hell when you're trying to watch something. Are these devices in question going to make it worse?
Thanks for that link and +1 Insightful to you. Not sure why I was modded a troll above because I was being serious even though I sounded like I was telling some kids to get off my lawn.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Right, because an extremist link by people with an incentive to not share is completely valid.
It's FUD, there are a number of assumptions that they made in making that which weren't justified, and at the very end they left a loophole so that they'd still be right even if it never happens.
What you don't seem to understand is that the FCC has for many years required devices to meet certain criteria to be allowed. It's rather arrogant to suggest that the small portion of the public that chooses not to have TV is more important than the part of the public which doesn't have access to the internet or the much larger group that might need the technology.
The FCC is there to make sure that things are orderly and they have for quite a while been responsible for certifying devices. The assumption that just because it uses the same or similar spectrum that it's going to cause that kind of interference is specious. Things like the power of signal and shielding make a huge difference.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow completely... can you try it again with a car analogy instead?
Great, now I know what interference is. Now how about some evidence that using this band would actually result in interference?
screw Sat radio
You wont lose your long range DTV. Did you know that there are wireless microphone company's that have be in of the FCC for decades and, even when dozens of those are in operation in a area . There are many takes on the tests done, look up WISPA and the involvement they have in this industry
Strawman people, Strawman
Again, our government sticking its nose in where is shouldn't. Were does it say in the constitution we have a right to free WIFI? Our government can't even run what it is supposed to with any efficiency or common sense. What makes you think they can manage this? And I certainly don't want my tax dollars wasted to try it...Morons.
Here's a video produced by the National Association of Broadcasters that shows what happens when somebody uses a "white space" gadget to connect to the internet on-top of an existing station:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/video-show-congress-white-space-interference-1014/
I hope Congress does the right thing and turns-down the use of these devices on channels 2-to-51. I don't want my television viewing to devolve to the poor interference displayed in the video.
Is this NAB video any less fraudulent than the studio-produced audio CD it distributed to Congress in 2000 to "prove" that interference would be caused by community low-power FM radio stations to its members' stations?
That NAB fraud was so successful, they're apparently trying it again:
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4835673-1.html
-bernieS
Clearly you don't understand a very simple concept:
If WBAL in Baltimore is broadcasting on channel 11, and somebody's white-space-enabled Ipod *also* starts broadcasting on channel 11, then there will be interference with one another. The FCC should not allow Ipods or any other devices to be overlapping channel 2 to 51. Those should be reserved for television, and nothing else.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
If your DTV is getting interference from *nearby*, but not overlapping channels, then its just plain broken. Either that, or the other device. End of discussion.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
You don't get it because you don't watch over-the-air television. If you did, then you'd know that OTA television is finicky and even something as small as a tree can cause dropouts.
Now imagine somebody broadcasting their whitespace-enabled Ipod over top of WBAL-11 while I'm trying to watch it. The result will be that channel 11 will disappear off my set.
Also are you aware that channels 36, 37, and 38 are used for hospital devices? Just what we need: Somebody turning on their whitespace gadget and causing a heart monitor to shutdown & kill a patient.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Get a bigger, better antenna, raise hell that the signal quality sux, (because if its that finicky, it is), and, if anything lesser than a nuclear detonation within 100 km can fuck up hospital devices, they arent built right either.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.