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.'
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?
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
Plus, the wire screen of many microphones can be kinda scratchy....oh wait, you were using the microsophone for talking into, right?
My blog
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/
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.