Why We Need Unlicensed White-Space Broadband Spectrum

pgoldtho writes "PC Mag has a story about why the 'white-space' spectrum that will be freed when TV broadcasts switch to digital should be available for unlicensed use. This would allow it to be used to deliver broadband connectivity in rural areas and create a 'third pipe' alternative to the cable/telco duopoly. The FCC is scheduled to vote on this November 4th. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has filed an emergency appeal to block this vote. If the NAB succeeds, the issue will be kicked into next year. Which would mean a new FCC, Congress, and Administration."

Comments

What we really need

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to finish kicking those race-baiting, Clinton impeaching, war starting, economy ruining Republicans out of office.

Damn Reds.

[wild_quinine]

Forget about it. If there's money to be made, someone's got a sniff of it and they're already lobbying harder than you ever could. (For 'harder' see 'with more assets'.)

And even if it stands that the space will not be licensed for some other commercial use, the existing bandwidth owners will lobby against it ever being given back to the public, because there is money to be made fencing people in to their existing ownership of the spectrum.

The very idea that the electromagnetic spectrum can be fenced off strikes me as ridiculous. Don't get me wrong - I'm aware of why it needs to be done. But it seems like such a short jump from there to Coca Cola declaring all rights over 'red'.

Re:Damn Reds.

[Zymergy]

UPS already has Dibs on "Brown"...

Re:Damn Reds.

[grahamd0]

And T-Mobile has "Magenta"

Re:Damn Reds.

[The Redster!]

In Soviet Russia, the Red has you!

Re:Damn Reds.

[Mr. Slippery]

But it seems like such a short jump from there to Coca Cola declaring all rights over 'red'.

Too late. In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., SCOTUS held that, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark." They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.

But of course, the issues are very different. Even at the physical level - most matter is opaque to the visible spectrum but transparent to radio.

Re:Damn Reds.

[elashish14]

The worst part (as mentioned in TFA): the spectrum (like many other things) is AUCTIONED. The rights are only going to end up in the hands of already-rich corporations who seek nothing but profit. No one will ever win.

Yes, the spectrum does need to be regulated - not by money - but by how it will benefit the people that use it.

Re:Damn Reds.

[Ihmhi]

They awarded trademark rights to "green-gold" to Qualitex.

So the Packers pay Qualitex a royalty or somethin' to use the colors?

Re:Damn Reds.

[theaveng]

I sent a comment to the FCC about this November 4 hearing, and in short I said this: "My channel count will drop from 15 to just 3 channels, if you allow whitespace devices to broadcast on the television band." If my neighbor flips-on her whitespace-enabled Ipod next year, its broadcasts will block any television station further away that 25 miles. So instead of watching Baltimore, Philly, or Harrisburg television like I normally do, I will be limited to just the local DTV stations in little podunk Lancaster PA.

Yuck. Furthermore even if I had cable, testing has shown that my neighbor's Ipod, since he's literally just feet away, will cause interference on both the analog and digital channels.

I'm all for whitespace, but I'm NOT for destroying the existing television spectrum (channel 2 to 51). Keep the whitespace devices off the TV band.

Re:Damn Reds.

[jonaskoelker]

UPS already has Dibs on "Brown"

They can expect a lawsuit from south african spaceman dude any day now..

Re:Damn Reds.

[theaveng]

MORE FROM ARS TECHNICA:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-white-space-battle-gets-dirty-as-the-mud-flies.html

"The broadcasters contend that adjacent channel interference would be significant even at the 40 mW level proposed by Kevin Martin. In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 40 feet or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within 200 feet from a set could allegedly cause interference."

Re:Damn Reds.

[thePig]

Not quite.
Money drives the invisible hand, and that invisible hand does a better job of improving society than any philanthropy.

Re:Damn Reds.

[Mr. Slippery]

So the Packers pay Qualitex a royalty or somethin' to use the colors?

A trademark applies only in a specific field of business. That's why both Ford Motors and Ford Models can claim the mark "Ford".

Re:Damn Reds.

[dpilot]

Kind of like the way the Beatles/Apple Records and Apple both own the "Apple" trademark, because the former does music and the latter does computers.... Oops!

How did that ever turn out, anyway? Did Apple Records reopen their suit, once the iPod and iTunes hit the market?

Re:Damn Reds.

[Jenos]

you mean next year when all of your analog channels are gone anyway.

Re:Damn Reds.

[dpilot]

It's good to hear that the FCC is so attuned to the problems of RFI and TVI. Otherwise I'd be really worried about the practice in the Deep South where right-wing broadcasters manage to license frequencies adjacent to NPR stations, and effectively drown them off the air. Since the FCC is so concerned, of course they're going to address this.

Re:Damn Reds.

[fyrewulff]

They settled. Apple Computer now owns the Apple Corps trademark but licenses it back to Apple Corps.

They probably figured it was easier to let Apple Computer fund the lawyers to defend the trademark, rather than drain their money endlessly suing Apple Computers.

Re:Damn Reds.

[Rambuncle]

Do you have anymore information about this, for example location or station call signs? I am interested in what is predicted as far as coverage and interference in the area you are talking about.

Re:Damn Reds.

[dpilot]

Sorry, no. I heard about this more than 6 months ago - on NPR.

Re:Damn Reds.

[Idarubicin]

So the Packers pay Qualitex a royalty or somethin' to use the colors?

Trademark rights aren't necessarily all-or-nothing in that way. In the Qualitex decision, the Court held that a color could be protected by trademark rights if it was used to identify a specific brand of a particular product. Since the Packers aren't trying to sell green-gold dry cleaning press pads, it seems unlikely that Qualitex's trademark would apply.

Similarly, there's nothing that prevents me from selling brown laptops (except good taste), but a court likely could sanction me if I were to start an express parcel delivery service that used the color brown extensively in its marketing and livery (infringing UPS' trademarked color).

Re:Damn Reds.

[Neurotic Nomad]

If you got your pre-recorded entertainment off of the internet instead of waiting for a broadcaster to send it out, it wouldn't matter how few channels you got.

.

Can you imagine if pre-recorded music tracks were distributed just like pre-recorded episodic video currently is?

Once per week, at a scheduled time, one track would come on the radio. Next week, you'll get another track. Be sure to set your Digital Audio Recorder if you want to hear it again, or want to listen to it at a time other than when it's broadcast!

Check out tvrss.net and stop suckling on the linear-delivery teet.

Between internet streaming/downloads and VOIP, closed/proprietary networks are doomed.

Re:Damn Reds.

[electrictroy]

>>>If you got your pre-recorded entertainment off of the internet instead of waiting for a broadcaster to send it out, it wouldn't matter how few channels you got.
>>>

Over-the-air television provides a 20 megabit/second connection. Point me to an internet company that provides that same service for free or almost-free.

That's right; it doesn't exist.

Re:Damn Reds.

[electrictroy]

>>>My channel count will drop from 15 to just 3 channels, if you allow whitespace devices to broadcast on the television band."

In my area (Northeast U.S.) the number of open whitespace channels is almost zero. Only channels 2, 3 and 4 are open. All of the other TV channels and co-adjacent channels are reserved by the FCC. Whitespace devices would not work here.

Re:Damn Reds.

[electrictroy]

In other words, a biased source. Or maybe you misunderstood their point??? The facts are that the FCC requires at least one channel space between every AM, FM, or TV station (in the same market). There's no possible way for a station to exist directly next-to an NPR station, unless it's an illegal station operating without FCC authority.

Re:Damn Reds.

[dpilot]

It most likely was 2nd adjacent, as you say. But NPR stations tend to be low-power repeaters, and a very powerful station even with 2nd adjacency tend will drown (or AGC) them out. They also indicated that the FCC isn't very fond of NPR running on repeaters even at the edges of the dial, because it "wastes" a lot of spectrum, and fewer more powerful stations are more efficient.

Need clarification

[TheSpoom]

Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed? Could someone not just make a jammer for the frequencies in question and spoil it for everyone? Or do FCC laws cover that even when it's not formally licensed? IANAEE.

Re:Need clarification

[tweak13]

Unlicensed doesn't just mean a free for all. It would be regulated in much the same way the many existing radio services are. The new users would have to make sure they operate in such a way that the primary user is not affected in any negative way. This includes ceasing transmissions completely if necessary to avoid interference. If you violate it and a primary user complains, eventually you're going to attract attention from the FCC, and they will fine you.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

Even regulated, having a bunch of broadcasting whitespace devices "running around" in my neighborhood WILL cause me to lose any DTV stations further away than 25 miles. There will be so much interference that my channel count will drop from 15 to 3.

Re:Need clarification

[interiot]

"Unlicensed" doesn't mean "unregulated". Licensed spectrum means that only one organization is in control of the spectrum, but even that doesn't prevent someone from setting up a jammer. I believe the FCC controls what radios can be sold on the market (i.e. the equipment must use this new-fangled "cognitive radio" scheme, and must hook into the FCC database of known incumbent signals), and as well, the FCC can try to locate someone who is persistently jamming.

Re:Need clarification

[kent_eh]

Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed? Could someone not just make a jammer for the frequencies in question and spoil it for everyone? Or do FCC laws cover that even when it's not formally licensed? IANAEE.

FCC Regulations, Part 15 covers this in great detail.
Here's an excerpt from sub-section 5

If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

Here is a PDF from the FCC entitled "UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS", which is exactly the rules which would be applicable to the hardware used for accessing the White-Space Broadband Spectrum .

Re:Need clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone could make a jammer now for any licensed spectrum. FCC licensing or regulations are not going to stop anyone who maliciously intends to jam signals.

As for interference, Some sort of layer 1 standard for broadcasting and layer two point-to-multipoint proctol will have to established as a standard for communicating, and then from there it would be completely open from a networking aspect.

Re:Need clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be like all the things we already do on unlicensed spectrum. Think 802.11b/g WiFi and 2.4 cordless phones running on overlapping frequncies. So possibly a lot of noise in heavy use areas. However, regulations specifying manufactured capabilities and use of items will still be made by the FCC, so intentional jammers will still be a no-no.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

>>>then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

+1 Informative! And if the operator refuses to turn-off his Whitespace-enabled Ipod, per FCC Regulation Part 15, because it's blocking my TV viewing of WBAL-11, can I smash it to pieces? ;-)

Re:Need clarification

[Mr. Slippery]

If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

And how well can we expect that to be enforced?

Right now, there are millions of in-car transmitters out there used for relaying satellite radio to car stereos. They cause all sorts of interference with "authorized radio communications". But since they were only interfering with NPR broadcasts, rather than those of someone with money, rather than take serious action against XM the FCC agreed to let them send out cheap useless ferrite beads and leave it up to customers to install them.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

From FCC.gov:

"QUIET SPOTS" (WHITE SPACES) BETWEEN STATIONS ON THE DIAL

The fact that there are locations on a radio or television tuning dial which do not receive a broadcast station does not necessarily indicate that a station can be added on that frequency. A station's signal on the same frequency or an adjacent frequency which is too distant or weak to be picked up by a radio receiver can still cause interference to other broadcast stations. For this reason, the Commission's rules require that stations located very close in frequency be located in different communities separated by some physical distance, so as to limit any potential interference.

Before it can be determined whether any "quiet spot" could support a broadcast station, the interested individual or group would need to have an engineering study performed to determine whether the frequency can actually be used. See our Information Sheet about How To Apply For A Broadcast Station.

Re:Need clarification

[Chyeld]

I also hear that with enough whitespace noise, the dead will arise and walk again. Killing and maiming the living in a never ending, ceasless desire for all to join them. Eventually we will all live in walled cities, praying for a quick death as plauge and starvation consume us from within. All because of little Suzzy's Whitespace Enabled iPod (LSWEP!).

Or maybe that was just some unsubstantiated FUD spread by someone who wanted to scare people into thinking the world was ending.

Who knows.

Re:Need clarification

[Chyeld]

Perhaps, they just read your post and realized it was mostly unsubstantiated bullshiting in the fine fashion of Microsoft/Neocon/Fox News FUD.

Perhaps, they aren't modding you down because they disagree with you but because you didn't add squat to the discussion.

Re:Need clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

Get this guy up to 5 please!

what idiot replies to his own post to simply complain about it being modded down.

Go read the FAQ on the mod system if you don't understand why it was setup the way it is.

Re:Need clarification

[tweak13]

Don't take my comment as support for whitespace devices, I was just responding to the hypothetical "what if somebody sets up a jammer" type situation. Personally I think unlicensed use of broadcast bands like TV and even FM are a horrible idea. I can't even count the number of times I've had the NPR station I'm listening to wiped out by some jackass with an iPod and a FM transmitter cruising by in the passing lane. Unlicensed use is possible in optimal conditions, but in realistic conditions it breaks down. Manufacturers don't adhere to specs well enough and make devices that are too powerful. People use devices on channels that are already occupied. Transmitters cause noise and take out adjacent channels. The list of problems could go on and on. It seems to me there's plenty of space available on other bands to do something like this. Why not use some space allocated to UHF mobile radios? At least those users have the possibility of moving to a different channel until the interference passes.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

>>>mostly unsubstantiated bullshiting

FALSE. The National Association of Broadcasters has done testing and determined that any Whitespace device within approximately 100 feet will block any TV station 25 miles away, even if the WSD is broadcasting on an adjacent channel (for example channel 16 next to WPHL17). Any WSD within 600 feet will block any TV station 50 miles away. These are the testing results that the NAB has submitted to the FCC.

Furthermore the Cable Television Coalition has submitted testing showing that any WSD within 50 feet of their service will not block the channel, but definitely will cause interference with analog or digital reception. In other words if you're trying to watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi Channel, and your kid sister turns on her WS-enabled Ipod, the picture will degrade into a bunch of noise and/or macroblocking.

Google and Microsoft keep insisting this won't happen because, of course, they stand to make millions of dollars off the sale of WSDs. They have $$$ dancing in front of their eyes.

Personally I'm torn; I'm not sure which greed-mongering corporation to believe, but I do know I won't be happy to see my television plummet from 15 to just 3 channels. I've invested a LOT of money upgrading from analog-to-digital television, and I have no desire to see that ~$300 wasted.

Re:Need clarification

[Lockejaw]

There's a lot of assumptions not being declared in your post (e.g. power and bandwidth of whitespace devices). Would you mind pointing me to the tests that determined this?

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

>>>Manufacturers don't adhere to specs well enough and make devices that are too powerful

Or else people modify their devices to output more power. It's often as easy as just taking a screwdriver to the operational-amplifier's variable resistor & turning the screw. I've never experienced someone driving-by with the XM/Sirius transmitter turned-on, but yes I can see how that would be annoying.

>>>Why not use some space allocated to UHF mobile radios?

The FCC has already approved whitespace devices for use on channels 52 to 69 (the portion that was recently auctioned-off), but you know how it goes. Corporations like Google and Microsoft want more.

Re:Need clarification

[epee1221]

Furthermore the Cable Television Coalition has submitted testing showing that any WSD within 50 feet of their service will not block the channel, but definitely will cause interference with analog or digital reception. In other words if you're trying to watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi Channel, and your kid sister turns on her WS-enabled Ipod, the picture will degrade into a bunch of noise and/or macroblocking.

There's something fishy about claims of RF devices interfering with cable signals. For one thing, cable signal isn't supposed to be interacting with anything outside the coax shield. Also, have you noticed that many frequencies used for cable are already used by various licensed radio services, sometimes with quite a bit of power?

Personally I'm torn; I'm not sure which greed-mongering corporation to believe

Judging from your other posts, I'd say you've already decided.

Re:Need clarification

[tweak13]

I've never experienced someone driving-by with the XM/Sirius transmitter turned-on, but yes I can see how that would be annoying.

I'm pretty sure I'm getting that for two reasons.
1) I live in a college town and have a disproportionate amount of students driving around that can't be separated from an iPod for more than five minutes. I'm fairly sure it has more to do with iPods than satellite radio since I don't actually know anybody that has a receiver for that.
2) NPR stations usually get crammed into the very bottom of the FM band, which for some reason is where most FM transmitters are set by default. Some even limit the frequencies that can be used to the bottommost five or six channels. As a result, my NPR station is more likely to be taken out by a rogue transmitter.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

External signals still "leak in" through the television or set-top box's internal receiver. My brother sees a "ghost" of local channel WGAL-8 superimposed over his cable channel 8.

And of course there are also those unterminated connections hanging out of people's walls; they act just like antennas to pick-up broadcasting transmitters (like whitespace devices).

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

>>>>Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed?

I sent a comment to the FCC about this November 4 hearing, and in short I said this: "My channel count will drop from 15 to just 3 channels, if you allow whitespace devices to broadcast on the television band." If a neighbor turns-on a WSD next year, its broadcasts will block any television station further away that 25 miles. So instead of watching Baltimore, Philly, or Harrisburg television like I normally do, I will be limited to just the local DTV stations in little podunk Lancaster PA.

Furthermore even if I had cable, testing has shown the her Ipod, since her bedroom is literally just feet away, will cause interference on both the analog and digital channels.

I'm all for whitespace, but I'm NOT for destroying the existing television spectrum (channel 2 to 51). Keep the whitespace devices off the TV band.

MORE FROM ARS TECHNICA:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-white-space-battle-gets-dirty-as-the-mud-flies.html

"The broadcasters contend that adjacent channel interference would be significant even at the 40 mW level proposed by Kevin Martin. In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 40 feet or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within 200 feet from a set could allegedly cause interference."

Re:Need clarification

[Bloodoflethe]

There are many ways of getting around this type of thing, read up on the various IEEE specs that assist in frequency saturation control. This will be an issue eventually. In general, however, it will not be, as long as the devices are programmed to use channels responsibly.

Re:Need clarification

[electrictroy]

Power == 40 mA; Bandwidth == 1 television channel; testing == FCC.gov; www.nab.org; http://www.interferencezones.com/

I think it's interesting looking at the list of Congresspeople who are AGAINST white space devices (bottom of page). Senator Hillary Clinton is the most prominent. Others include:

Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
John Barrasso (R-WY)

Bobby Rush (D-IL)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
Johny Isakson (R-GA)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sue Myrick (R-9th)
Howard Coble (R-6th)
Robin Hayes (R-8th)
Melvin L. Watt (D-12th)
Mike McIntyre (D-7th)
G. K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
David Price (D-4th)
Heath Shuler (D-11th)
Bob Etheridge (D-2nd)
Brad Miller (D-13th)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Tom Latham (R-IA)
Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL)
Jo Bonner (R-AL)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Jon Porter (R-NV)
Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)

Re:Need clarification

[electrictroy]

If they refuse to comply with FCC regulations, then yes you are authorized to take whatever means necessary to end their transmission.

Re:Need clarification

[BLKMGK]

Was that a LOT of money or was that $300? Because frankly $300 isn't a LOT of money in the grand scheme of home theater TV much less sitting down and watching some normal crap TV. Tell me you spent $3K and have some real honest serious proof that this is going to cause issues and I'll have some sympathy.

As it stands right now I want to see more widespread high speed 'net access and this sounds like a good way to perhaps get it. I haven't found arguments against it persuasive and would like to see some independent research - not something from companies with huge vested interests.

Re:Need clarification

[BLKMGK]

Am starting to think you are a shill here but I'll try to take this seriously.... When was the last time you popped open a modern digital device like an iPod transmitter, WiFi card, or other digital transmitter and found a VARIABLE RESISTOR in it controlling power?! Are you serious? A firmware flash maybe but an analog variable resistor? Would like to see a SMT one of those heh....

Re:Need clarification

[Curunir_wolf]

Maybe you were modded down because you posted the exact same post at least 3 times. Yea, that's *at least* redundant. Hopefully the mods will catch all of them and bury them.

Re:Need clarification

[pleappleappleap]

Tell him to wire his cable properly.

Re:Need clarification

[Khakionion]

Or maybe it's because you're double posting. Or maybe, like Chyeld said, you're just spouting useless drivel.

Re:Need clarification

[theaveng]

You know what? I hope they DO approve WSDs, because then I can listen to you (and other people) whining about how Ipods and other whitespace-enabled gadgets are causing interference with your Sci-Fi Channel and other cable channels. Some people don't learn except through direct experience.

Re:Need clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

You made nearly the same post twice, dumbass.

Re:Need clarification

[electrictroy]

Well I have a PC transmitter that broadcasts Internet Radio onto an FM channel (87.9), and it does indeed have a screw to adjust the power level to higher settings. I turned it to maximum and was able to receive the signal almost a mile away from my house. It was an extremely-easy modification.

Since broadcasting at such high levels violates FCC rules, I turned it back down to just cover my backyard.

Re:Need clarification

[electrictroy]

>>>Some people don't learn except through direct experience.

Quoted for truth. Some people don't realize the consequences of their actions until it's too late. Like buying a house with "no money down" and then later having to default on the mortgage. If these whitespaces are allowed to happen, a lot of people will be happy... until they discover the consequences like interference on their Cable reception.

Re:Need clarification

[electrictroy]

Well most of the senators/representatives from the rural states (where people are limited to 50k), disagree with you. To quote one letter a Georgia senator sent to the FCC: "Although I support bringing broadband to my rural constituents, damaging their reception of free television is not the correct approach to use. Especially now when the economy is experiencing turmoil. Now is not the time to disrupt established industries. I encourage you to postpone approval of these whitespace devices until a much later date."

I see similar letters coming in from Wyoming, Iowa, Alabama, and New York congressmen/women as well. Mostly Democrats, but also a few Republicans.

Re:Need clarification

[pleappleappleap]

Tell all of THEM to wire their cable properly.

Useful frequency?

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful would these whitespace frequencies be at the home users end if this was used for two way internet? They aren't going to be running huge 50,000 watt towers like the TV broadcasters use. At say 5 watts (whatever/small) for the home connection "last mile" rig, will this work over long distances with hills and trees, or will it be line of sight and not much better than current wifi? I tried a service with motorola canopy wireless and it's still line of sight to a tower, any hills in the way and the signal dergrades fast to barely there or nothing.

Re:Useful frequency?

[evilviper]

will this work over long distances with hills and trees, or will it be line of sight and not much better than current wifi?

Running at less than half the frequency of WiFi, it will do considerably better at going through obstacles, but it's not LF, it's not going to travel hundreds of miles and skip of the ionosphere... You're ALWAYS going to be constrained by line of sight and the curvature of the earth.

Re:Useful frequency?

[nametaken]

The issue of power, distance and line-of-sight are all things that are actually big parts of the debate on this.

For instance, if your internet device is in a valley between two hills, and a TV tower is broadcasting on one hill, with a tv viewer on the other, your device may not be able to determine that they're broadcasting there.

The net result is crap internet for you and you've annihilated the TV signal for the person viewing it on the other side of the valley.

Re:Useful frequency?

[nametaken]

Oh, and there's a good chance you'll knock out the unlicensed wireless microphone system in the church up the street.

Re:Useful frequency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck churches anyway.

Re:Useful frequency?

[sjames]

The lower frequency will give you a much better chance than current WiFi frequencies, but it will be fairly short range (last mile, not across the state). A good directional antenna will be your friend for any fixed installation. Mobile may not work all that well. Unlike current frequencies, a wet leaf won't ruin your day. A few hills will be fine, but large granite faces will be a problem still.

What?

[rmadmin]

Seriously.. WHAT? We don't _NEED_ this to provide rural broadband. If 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.7Ghz, and 5.9ghz (are there more?) aren't enough, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! I'm providing rural broadband right now over both 900 and 2.4 to over 100 customers. The base package is 1Mbit/512K. Not bad if you live on a farm in Iowa if you ask me.

Re:What?

[jonaskoelker]

The base package is 1Mbit/512K. Not bad if you live on a farm in Iowa if you ask me.

Bad if you ask anyone living somewhere in Sweden, say Götebarrrrr or Karrrrrlskrona... ;)

Re:What?

[rickb928]

That's a viable plan in Iowa, or even in Phoenix where I live (unless you live near Camelback Mountain...).

But try that plan in rural Maine, my hometown for instance. Not working. 900MHz is a struggle, and anything above 1.5G is a waste of time for rural distances. Just not happening.

This is the problem with metro wireless solutions. Real rural areas are largely hilly, forested, and unfriendly to microwave spectrum. Get down a little bit, even to 700MHz, and it all becomes so much easier. Oh, and one other thing: In most rural areas, it looks good now. Wait a few years to let the trees grow a bit. Woopsie. Ask any satellite TV guy. Getting a clean LOS today doesn't mean much. Watch out for that poplar tree over there. It will block you in 3 years. Darn. Wireless is only as much about technology as it is about terrain.

Re:What?

[rmadmin]

Apples and oranges.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am a WISP and NO! It is not enough. Lets see you push some data like 15mbit+ accounts, not just around 10mbit/sector. 700mhz is another tool in the box. 900mhz here is so screwed up from pager + power co + baby monitors + random crap that it just does not work. Join www.wispa.org and lean about areas, even rural, that have serious sharing issues with other users. Lower 2.4ghz is hams as primary = lots of power, 2.4 has STL links = lots of power, 5.2/5.3/5.4 have stupid DFS requirements making your links fail randomly (DoD radar detect) 5.8 has WMUX and other evil that hose it. Do not forget the T1/DS3 extenders that exist in 2.4/5.x also. 3.65 is WiHyped and does not deliver any more bandwidth, but does have the joys of being licensed so as to keep your interferer to just other wisps (an no one gets priority). Face it, I could come to your area and blow your network away and you have NO FCC support to stop me. Your best bet is to do a civil suit and even that has been tenuous at best so far in court. Another issue is that you do not have to use 1 link to cause the whole issue, a person could setup X number of towers and just raise the noise floor high enough that you can not operate. We need protected spectrum for WISP only use. Everyone should go to the FCC site and file a comment (hopefully in support) about this issue.

Re:Upload?

[zappepcs]

While you are right, I think you are emotionally wrong. If Google puts up a nationwide 3 channel white space network, paying for it with ad revenue, then yes, you do pay for it, but you don't pay for it, if you understand what I mean.
One might also argue that nothing worth having is truly free. You have to pay for it at some point, and in some way.

Besides, won't someone think of the terrorists? They need communications too!

On a lighter note, there are many situations that justify a socialistic payment plan. Imagine that everyone has Internet access, pizza and emergency services are routinely ordered via the Internet. It is so common that an entire generation has grown up using it. Now, imagine that this is only for people who can afford it. When we decide to make this pay for play forever, it ends up being the same as pay for play electricity. Perhaps not everyone can afford it, but no one can NOT afford to pay for it. The Internet is becoming something that is not really optional anymore. Sure, you can say you can live without it, but you won't be competitive, you won't be effective in society. There is a point where services become necessary rather than luxuries. The USA is at the point where Internet service is a necessity rather than a luxury.

The White Space networking plan is a good one. There is space there for controlled usage. The fear mongers are trying to sell their own services. Musicians who worry that their wireless microphones will stop working are selling fear, and blatantly so. It amazes me, musicians, like the rest of the population will have some very small percentage who are smart and who understand telecommunications, so why do we listen to all of them like they are special?

Moving on... Why should you pay for it? Simple. For the same reasons that the Federal Government tries to regulate the financial markets. It's supposed to be good for growth and prosperity of the whole country, not just for one or two people. (Even though that seems to be what is happening under the current government) when other parts of the country/economy grow, you benefit as well. The point is that tax payer dollars spent on white space networks with open access is good for the economy, and thus good for you and me. If no tax dollars are spent on it, that's even better.

Rural Communities Could Benefit

[Cornwallis]

This could be a wonderful opportunity for loca governments to provide a service to the community at little to no increase over any existing cost. Using open source hardware & software there could be a whole network of intra-town communications systems. I'd certainly donate my time and some equipment to get this going.

Re:Rural Communities Could Benefit

[znerk]

This could be a wonderful opportunity for loca governments to provide a service to the community at little to no increase over any existing cost. Using open source hardware & software there could be a whole network of intra-town communications systems. I'd certainly donate my time and some equipment to get this going.

Do a little more research. The towns and cities that have tried to deploy any kind of networking infrastructure as a public service have gotten smacked in the face with cease and desist letters, lawsuits, and in some cases, criminal charges. There's too much money in it for the "Big Players" (aka service providers) to let a municipality into the field.

Re:Upload?

[baldass_newbie]

Thanks. But nobody answered the first question.
And like it or not, but those telephone poles weren't put up by the phone company on their dime.

And 700bn reasons why you won't get

[MosesJones]

The current deficit and the $700bn bailout sort of ensures that this will be sold off to get ANY sort of money back into the central pot.

flatlands

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that work with the hills and trees in the way? I asked this up above, as I tried such a service and it didn't work, had to go back to dialup. Hills where I live on this farm, not flatlands like Iowa. Sorry but I don't know what frequency that motorola canopy based service was, I forget now, but I will assume it was one of those in your list, and the techs said no line of sight=SOL.

Re:flatlands

[xSauronx]

i worked with a wISP for a while. 700mhz and 900mhz equipment can handle a surprising amount of foliage and still provide a decent connection.

however, they wont shoot straight through trees, but if foliage is in some of the lower part of the trannsmission field (called a fresnel zone) then the signal is passable.

as you get to higher frequencies, objects are more of a problem (at least as far as the canopy stuff goes). hills....well hills you cant do dick about. theyre very thick and dense, unlike scattered foliage, so they completely block the signal. anything sufficiently dense will do this.

Re:flatlands

[Anonymous Coward]

So far all practical purposes the only possibility for me getting any sort of broadband is one of those cellphone plans that are very expensive and very limited/or satellite? Even the upcoming "wimax", whatever frequencies that is supposed to be probably won't work if a hill is in the way?

Re:flatlands

[theaveng]

>>>So far all practical purposes the only possibility for me getting any sort of broadband

Why don't you call your local phone company and inquire if you can upgrade your line to DSL? They might have some requirement such as, "We need at least 10 subscribers to make it work," at which point you can round-up your neighbors and get them all to agree to join DSL. All the telephone lines are already installed; all you need is the company to install a DSLAM at the central switching office, and you're done.

My DSL costs me $15 a month; in a rural community it might cost a little bit more.

Re:flatlands

[dpilot]

Why answer with a cogent, technical solution when a simple insult will do:

FLATLANDER!

Re:flatlands

[electrictroy]

"Republican!" is the insult most people like to direct at the middle part of the U.S..... as if the views/opinions of the "flyover states" have no value.

Re:flatlands

[dpilot]

That's funny, because "Liberal!" seems to be one of the more common insults on TV.

Freeness?

[elashish14]

When will America get it? Some things, like education, healthcare/health insurance, 911 (police, fire department, ambulance), and the internet should be offered to everyone. They're not assets, they're life essentials. Right now, they're only guaranteed to two of those and one of them (education) is fading fast.

There was once a time when the fire department was a private service - imagine what life would be like if they still had to pay for that (yes, I know we pay taxes anyways, but it's still granted for everyone). And how long are they going to treat other essentials like the internet as such?

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

You are 100% correct. Everybody has a right to healthcare.

Everybody has a right to walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm sick," and expect the doctor to try to heal them.

What they do NOT have a right to do is take the bill and hand-it-off to their neighbors & force the neighbors to pay the bill. That's called theft. It's YOUR bill; YOU pay for it.

Re:Freeness?

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is not an essential service, sorry it's just not. Don't even try that.

There are plenty of people who use all of those and have no need what-so-ever for the internet. It shouldn't be free anymore than telephone service or cable tv is free.

Re:Freeness?

[marco.antonio.costa]

Why stop there? I mean, for how long are they going to keep life essentials like a personal yacht and 24/7 Swedish hooker from everyone? How about iPods? Fuck!

It's just disgraceful, all those rich fellas ought to contribute back some of their profits to society. ;-)

Re:Freeness?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this about America?

What other country offers internet access as a public service?

Re:Freeness?

[novalis112]

I'm not going to say that health care is or is not a right, but I believe that your argument is flawed.

A right is not something that you pay for. It is something that is inherently yours and which can not be taken away from you without your consent.

When you say "Everybody has a right to health care" you imply that the health care provided does not need to be paid for. If it has to be paid for, it is not a right, it is a privilege.

Re:Freeness?

[BigGar']

Yes, or to put it succinctly:
To each according to their need.
From each according to their ability.

Karl Marx

Re:Freeness?

[Chyeld]

You are 100% correct. Everybody has a right to healthcare.

Everybody has a right to walk into a doctor's office, say "I'm sick," and expect the doctor to try to heal them.

What they do NOT have a right to do is take the bill and hand-it-off to their neighbors & force the neighbors to pay the bill. That's called theft. It's YOUR bill; YOU pay for it.

And everyone in the world agrees with that till they get sick.

Till they get sick and look at their bill and realize they are paying $50 for an aspirin pill.

Till they get sick and look at their bill and realize that the reason they are paying $50 for an aspirin pill is because the hospital has to pay for the hundred million dollar piece of equipment they use to diagnose people.

Till they get sick and look at their bill and realize that the reason they are paying $50 for an aspirin pill is because the hospital has to pay for the hundred million dollar piece of equipment because the medical equipment company to cover the cost of research and development.

Till they realize that the moment they got the bill they were already paying for every other patient in that hospital and in the nation.

At which point they normally realize that your argument is full of bullshit and the only real difference between a socialized system and what we have is at least a socialized system allows to you to get out from under your medical bills should you ever get a real sickness.

About a decade ago, a friend of mine got the news that her father had just been diagnosed with cancer. He owned his own construction company, he and his wife had a nice home on the outskirts of the town they lived in. He wasn't a millionaire but it'd be hard to call him poor.

After three years of fighting it he couldn't pay for his treatments and but he was still too 'rich' to qualify for assistance. He was too proud to rack up a debt that wouldn't be paid off so before he died, he watched as almost everything he built and saved for his daughter was sold off to pay for his medical bills. His business, his home, his legacy for his daughter.

In the last month of his life, his wife was diagnosed with MS. She killed herself rather than be treated because she was afraid there would be nothing left but debt to pass along to their daughter.

The healthy can talk all the bullshit they want about paying your own way. Get sick in America and realize how expensive it actually is before you start condemning the rest of the world for considering heathcare something that should be extended to everyone without the specter of having your entire life afterwards destroyed by debt.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

>>>you imply that the health care provided does not need to be paid for

Did you even bother to read my WHOLE post? It's clear you did not. Let me quote the relevant portion: "What they do NOT have a right to do is take the bill and hand-it-off to their neighbors & force the neighbors to pay the bill. That's called theft. It's YOUR bill; YOU pay for it."

Just the same as buying a car. You have a right to buy a Lexus; you don't have the right to make your neighbors cover the cost.

Re:Freeness?

[novalis112]

If I had not read the quoted portion of your post, where would I have gotten the idea that you expect people to pay for their own health care? Anyway... You have made two *very* different statements...

There is a huge difference between saying "you have a right to buy a Lexus", and saying "you have a right to a Lexus".

If you want to say that everyone has the right to buy health care, then go ahead and say that. But as long as you state that everyone has a right to health care, it is not valid to then go on and state that they must pay for it.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

Jeez. Picky-picky.

All I meant is that you have a Right to Free Speech, and that you can direct your speech at a doctor, and request that he heal your sick body. That's it. (And I'm sure you knew perfectly well that's what I meant, even if I didn't run my language past a lawyer prior to posting.)

What you do NOT have a right to do is take you Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft. (It's also partial enslavement.)

Re:Freeness?

[Sloppy]

By that line of reasoning, everyone should have a "free" (taxpayer funded) printing press and gun.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

>>>And everyone in the world agrees with that till they get sick.

Even if I was laying on my deathbed, I would NOT steal money from my neighbor. I'm going to die anyway, whether it's now at age 60, or later at age 70. The end point (coffin) is not changing and there's no point trying to fight the inevitable destination.

But if I steal money from my neighbor, and force them to pay my doctor's bill, well, that could have dramatic consequences. Like eternal damnation.

Re:Freeness?

[novalis112]

I'm hardly being picky. When people say "everyone has a right to health care", it is accepted that they mean exactly what they are saying. Everyone should be cured of all life threatening illness/injury, regardless of their income or lack thereof. If you want to disagree with them, just go ahead and do it! Be bold, make a statement! "I DO NOT believe that everyone has a right to health care!"

Re:Freeness?

[novalis112]

Not in the least. The amendments which you are referring to state that the government should protect your right to freedom of expression, and your right to bear arms. Neither amendment stipulates that the government must fund either of these endeavors.

When people refer to a "universal health care system" they are referring to a (typically government sponsored) program which ensures that everyone has the *means* to *acquire* health care.

Re:Freeness?

[Stormwatch]

If he was so successful, why didn't he have a health insurance plan? Why do others have to pay for his lack of foresight?

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

Jeez. Picky-picky.

(And I'm sure you knew perfectly well that's what I meant, even if I didn't run my language past a lawyer prior to posting.)

I used to get mad at people who picked at my semantics. Now I understand that anyone who is not psychic has a chance of misunderstanding any communication, even if it is couched in the correct terminology. If you want to use your Free Speech to its fullest potential, learn to speak the language properly, to reduce the chance of a recipient misinterpreting your meaning. This entire thread, based on your initial post, could have been avoided if you had made yourself clear from the beginning.

I'm not attacking you, by the way. I'm just trying to give you a better understanding of why choosing your words carefully is more important than you apparently think, and show some support for someone who evidently understands very well the point I'm attempting to make.

I cheerfully await my off-topic mods, while hoping that I have helped someone to increase their knowledge through my efforts.

--
"It's not enough to merely question authority. You have to speak with it, too." - Taylor Mali

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

But if I steal money from my neighbor, and force them to pay my doctor's bill, well, that could have dramatic consequences. Like eternal damnation.

Get your religion's nose out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, and out of my government.
I do not share your beliefs, and I resent the ethical implications and moral allegations you are attempting to lay at my feet.
The moment you try to convince me of your argument by pointing out the invisible man in the sky who loves me so much that he's willing to send me to a magical place full of hellfire and brimstone to be tortured forever for my misdeeds... well, you lose.
Oh, and another thing. That communion thing you take part in? It's ritualized cannibalism. Look it up, you're the one with a Bible. "Take this, my body, and eat it..." - and you have the nerve to point your holier-than-thou finger at me?!?

Sorry for coming across as a rabid atheist, but I couldn't care less about eternal damnation from some mythology system that I don't subscribe to. Explain to me again why it matters that it's Sunday, when I want to buy a bottle of rum? Keep your religious bigotry in your own religion, and out of my lawbooks.

And now for some actual rebuttal...

No one is saying that we should steal from our neighbors. I think the intent here is to stop the medical monopolists and insurance fraudsters from stealing from everyone else. Socialized medicine may not be the (pardon the pun) miracle cure for this issue, but it's quite a bit better than our current system, wherein a second mortgage is required if you have something more serious than a head cold.

Tell me why an ambulance ride, totalling 6 blocks, during which nothing more than a bandaid and an aspirin are administered, should cost in excess of $3,600.00 before you expect me to listen to you whine about how you never get sick, so you shouldn't have to pay taxes for other people to obtain healthcare. I don't have kids, but my taxes pay for schools.

In short, wake up to the fact that the world does not revolve around you, and get over it.

Re:Freeness?

[tadheckaman]

In the last month of his life, his wife was diagnosed with MS. She killed herself rather than be treated because she was afraid there would be nothing left but debt to pass along to their daughter.

A child cannot inherit a parent's debt. Only if their own name is on the debt.

Re:Freeness?

[BLKMGK]

You'd be surprised what even the "insured" are expected to pay when it comes to life altering accidents or illness. I've seen this occur to people three times in my life and it is NEVER pretty.

Re:Freeness?

[BLKMGK]

True however they will happily bankrupt the estate if they can. Parents often wish to pass on wealth to their children, an expensive stay in the hospital or an extended care facility can completely wipe out even the prosperous. Even keeping a family member in your home with some nursing assistance is shockingly expensive if it lasts for very long. I can completely understand why someone might take their own life when they have realized what their care will cost.

Re:Freeness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe we could change regulations so you could... diagnose yourself and buy your own aspirin pills for much less than $50!

(Actually, you can for aspirin, so obviously I'm suggesting to extend it for currently non-OTC things.)

Essentially, government regulation of most things medical means a few people and corporations can provide medical services, and will charge an inefficiently high price and/or give poor service because the artificial barrier to entry limits competition.

Restricting it to one provider (government) only worsens the problem. Keeping the same provider system, but adding government insurance, doesn't work out either; the government winds up regulating what prices it will pay, and prices all stay at that level. (And lobbyists make sure that level goes up all the time...)

Re:Freeness?

[Zenaku]

I know I'm piling on, and I deserve a redundant mod if I get it, but I have to agree that he is not being remotely picky. You have twice rephrased your statement in ways that dramatically change its meaning.

* Everyone has a right to health care.
* Everyone has the right to purchase health care.
* Everyone has the right to request that someone allow them to purchase health care.

If you can't see how different those three things are, your brain is defective. And if you can, and want to be understood, then for crying out loud say what you mean!

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

Sometimes the most-persuasive technique is to pretend to agree with someone even when you don't. "Yeah you're right people should get healthcare... but not for free."

Otherwise if you say "no you're wrong" they get defensive and don't hear a word you said. Putting people on the defense is not going to advance your cause.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

I still maintain everyone has a right to healthcare, so long as they have the money to pay for it. They have the right to buy a Porsche too, or a 1 Gigabit internet line, or a small mansion..... so long as they have the money.

If they don't have the money (shrug) too bad. You don't get any of it.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

P.S.

The reason I say you have "a 'right' to healthcare if you pay the doctor money", is because I don't think a doctor should be allowed to say "no". If said doctor refuses to take your money and shows you the door, then I think he should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

Re:Freeness?

[theaveng]

>>>Get your religion's nose out of my wallet

Why? YOU insist upon shoving your communist/socialist morality down everybody's throat, forcing them to pay taxes towards objectionable things (like giving free healthcare to smokers, or free abortions to kill human fetuses).

It's funny how you object to religion, and then you turn-around and try to shove YOUR morality down everybody's throats. Hypocrite much? You're no better than the Popes.

>>>I think the intent here is to stop the medical monopolists

A government monopoly is still a monopoly. It is no better than a corporate monopoly, and far worse than true competition amongst multiple providers.

Re:Freeness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise if you say "no you're wrong" they get defensive and don't hear a word you said. Putting people on the defense is not going to advance your cause.

Isn't that what you're doing?

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

Back up and regroup, fruitcake. Yes, I object to religion, but at what point did I shove my morality down anyone's throat? I merely objected (albeit vehemently) to your threats of hellfire and damnation. Come to think of it, this thread is now so far off topic, I'm wasting my bandwidth to continue it... but I'm more than happy to correct some of your confusion.

For starters, let's discuss free health care for smokers. I never said anything about that in my post, and to the best of my knowledge, have never posted anything even remotely related. Better try reading my post again, this time with a little something called reading comprehension. If it matters, I think that smokers, once educated about the risks, are their own masters, and can deal with the bits of unpleasantness that come along with the habit. If it matters, I am currently a smoker.

Abortion is a touchy subject, and another one I didn't touch upon in my post (or any of my posts, if I recall correctly - on the other hand, I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm pro-choice, especially in a health risk or unwilling zygote recipient situation (rape victims would fall into this latter category, in case you are unable to utilize a dictionary to look up these big words).

Spoiler alert! This is an ad hominem attack, but it has a basis in fact (as it it refers to things that were actually in your post)!
I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from, but I think you might want to see a shrink about your apparent psychosis. You appear to have some serious reality distortion going on, and I'd love to chat about your paranoid delusions, but I have more important things to do than play in your fantasy world.

Re:Freeness?

[electrictroy]

...by stealing the money from their neighbors' paychecks, so that one person can buy themselves a new Lexus..... ooops, I mean heart. It's the many sweating/laboring to enrich a single person.

Re:Freeness?

[electrictroy]

Yes, but we all know that a nationalist/socialized healthcare system provided by Uncle Sam/government monopoly will result in me (and taxpayers in general) providing free healthcare to smokers and abortion-seekers. I find that morally objectionable. And I don't feel like having that shoved down my throat, anymore than you would wish to have religion shoved down your throat.

Re:Freeness?

[electrictroy]

>>>True however they will happily bankrupt the estate if they can. Parents often wish to pass on wealth to their children, an expensive stay in the hospital or an extended care facility can completely wipe out even the prosperous
>>>

I know some Democrats who would be thrilled at that idea. They genuinely-believe that a parents' wealth should not be passed onto the child. That's why they keep pushing for higher-and-higher "death tax" (inheritance tax).

Re:Freeness?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find not executing those who create /. accounts that start with the letter 'e' morally objectionable, but for some reason I'm not allowed to kill you. Why are you shoving your morality down my throat?

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

I find it morally objectionable (and counterproductive) to pay taxes to put your kids through school, just to have you bring them home and teach them falsehoods as if it were (pardon the pun) gospel. I find it morally objectionable that you are allowed to continue to "teach" people by shouting that it's either obey an invisible man in the sky and "his" 2,000 year old rulebook, or burn.

Yes, this is an oversimplification, and exaggeration for effect. Religion is evil, as far as I can tell, and it should be abolished.

As for paying for smokers' healthcare... is it the cigarettes' fault if someone falls down and breaks their leg? Perhaps the cigarettes caused them to get hit by that car on the interstate... Denying all healthcare on the basis of someone's habitual (ab)use of a legal substance seems a bit far-fetched. I can see not paying for lung cancer for a smoker, or even forcing the manufacturer of their preferred brand of cigarettes to pay for treatments of that condition, but where do you pull the plug? If they are attacked by a hammer-weilding maniac while they're pumping gas into their car, do you deny them life-saving neurosurgery for having made a poor choice as a teen?

Abortion is a touchy subject, as I said before, and I don't think any sort of broad-spectrum yes-or-no will be the answer. Is it a woman's burden to bear the child of a rapist? What if it could kill her to bring the child to term, or even just to get halfway there? I fail to see a reason why it would be murder to kill an unborn child, a zygote, a barely conceived speck... but it's not murder to cause the death of an adult woman.

Re:Freeness?

[electrictroy]

>>>Religion is evil, as far as I can tell, and it should be abolished.

A religion based-around Socialism or Communism is not better. It's still a few elitists trying to impose their morality on everybody. Why can't we just let people follow their OWN morals without interference from government? As Thomas Jefferson said, "Nobody has a right to harm another, but that is all that a government should restrain him." i.e. Live and let live. Follow your own moral code (or lack thereof).

Re:Freeness?

[electrictroy]

>>>Denying all healthcare on the basis of someone's habitual (ab)use of a legal substance seems a bit far-fetched.

That's okay. Trying to avoid death seems stupid. Even if government paid ALL your expenses (food, housing, doctoring), you're still not going to live forever. Eventually you will succumb to the pain of death. Not even a 100% socialist state can stop it.

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

>>>Religion is evil, as far as I can tell, and it should be abolished.

A religion based-around Socialism or Communism is not better. It's still a few elitists trying to impose their morality on everybody. Why can't we just let people follow their OWN morals without interference from government? As Thomas Jefferson said, "Nobody has a right to harm another, but that is all that a government should restrain him." i.e. Live and let live. Follow your own moral code (or lack thereof).

Ok, first off... What?

Secondly, I was never arguing *for* socialism (not that I think it's a bad idea, mind you)... I was arguing *against* religion. Not just whatever religion you're saying I was arguing against, but religion in general. Any of them. All of them. Socialism is not a religion, nor is Communism. Both of those social structures are best served by having everyone agree to them beforehand. Using them as a large-scale political system is absurd; they are best suited for small groups - as are most forms of self-government.

It seems to me that you are arguing for anarchy - which, as anyone who has studied it can tell you, is an idealism that has no basis in reality. Anarchy as an ideal is excellent; in practice, it rapidly devolves into something that makes the current legislative nightmare look like a pleasant daydream.

"Follow your own moral code (or lack thereof)." - yeah, sounds good on paper. What if my moral code is to go around lopping limbs off of people I disagree with? Sounds not so great now, eh? What if my complete lack of moral code allows me to feel no remorse when I go out setting churches on fire... preferably with the parishioners inside? Still sound like "live and let live"?

I'm sorry, but your brain appears to be defective. Please return it to the vendor and apply for a new one at your earliest convenience. If need be, a hammer can be acquired at any hardware supplier to assist in its removal, or a large rock will do in a pinch.

Re:Freeness?

[znerk]

That's okay. Trying to avoid death seems stupid. Even if government paid ALL your expenses (food, housing, doctoring), you're still not going to live forever. Eventually you will succumb to the pain of death. Not even a 100% socialist state can stop it.

You should seek immediate psychiatric assistance for your apparently fatalistic, suicidal, and/or defeatist ideations.

I support putting it off till next year

[ourcraft]

A net neutrality supporting President will be very very helpful in bringing this forward.

When you think of the number of things that will benefit from a Administration that understands what the stakes are, who support competition and diversity in the media, who oppose concentration, who understand regulation as a protection from overbearing behemoths, its exciting to be waiting.

Re:I support putting it off till next year

[Anonymous Coward]

When you think of the number of things that will benefit from a Administration that understands what the stakes are, who support competition and diversity in the media, who oppose concentration, who understand regulation as a protection from overbearing behemoths, its exciting to be waiting.

Yes, I am as eager as you are for the excitement of finally seeing a McCain administration.

Re:Upload?

[Anonymous Coward]

The gov't shouldn't necessarily be regulating anything. With regulation comes control and I don't think the gov't should be controlling the internet access of citizens. Think of the anti political party sites of whatever party is in power...how will we get 'real' news?

Re:Upload?

[zappepcs]

The government, fucktard, isn't trying to fucking own the white space networks, fucktard. Google and a few other fucking companies are fucking trying to fucking do something fucking good for fucktards in society. Fucktards like you are fucking trying to fucking ruin every fucking thing because you fucking can't understand fucking common fucking sense. What a fucktard you are. They will fucking probably fucking make some fucking money for their fucking efforts, but for fuck sake, they fucking deserve to fucking make some fucking cash for all that fucking work. You, fucktard, on the other hand fucking probably think that you alone are fucking worthy of getting something for fucking free while every fucking body else needs to fucking pay. Perhaps next fucking time you can fucking read something about the fucking issue before fucking shooting off your fucktard mouth about fucking shit you have no fucking clue about?

Re:Upload?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually informative if you remove every instance of the word "fuck"!

Re:Upload?

[zappepcs]

While the regulation and control of airwaves seems absurd from some viewing angles, if you think about it, someone making sure that no one interferes with anyone else is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that the FCC has always done a superb job, or that laws are enacted without prejudice. I'm just saying the principle is sound and good. Since airwaves do not stop at state borders, a federal agency for such is necessary. Having said that, I agree with your sentiment but also understand that Joe the plumber down the street doesn't necessarily give a shit what my reception is like so it's good to have someone to go to for mediation of conflicts. Laws help with that mediation.

hills

[Anonymous Coward]

Going through obstacles and "better". Doesn't exactly answer my question on hills, although you did say it was constrained by line of sight, so back to my original comment and the answer appears to be "it won't work if a hill is in the way". Correct? It might work if just a thin tree is in the way, but a building or hill and it won't? I know now if I had such a thing as line of sight to a wifi hotspot I could theoretically have a good antenna and get it to work over many miles, but this doesn't exist here. Whereas even with hills and such, I can get a lot of normal TV and radio stations now (not perfect on the TV but good enough with the analog signals, I don't have my digital converter yet so haven't tried it, I think I may lose Tv then too next year given what I have read about it), and not in line of sight of those either, that's why I was asking the question. It looks to be barely better theoretically than existing wifi unless you are running a multi thousand watt transmitter and receiver at home, off of a huge tower. See that's the real question, we can't just say the word "rural" and have it applied equally. I lived out in flat corn country once, yep, range is greatly enhanced on radio signals in general, but even modest hills, let alone mountains, and it is a totally different story. (I just live in a "very modest hills" area now)

Re:hills

[evilviper]

Doesn't exactly answer my question on hills, although you did say it was constrained by line of sight, so back to my original comment and the answer appears to be "it won't work if a hill is in the way". Correct?

No, not correct at all.

Whether it will work or not depends on how many degrees of curvature the signal has to disperse across to go "around" the hill in question.

The higher the frequency, the less the signal will "curve" around such obstacles. With UHF being less than half the frequency of WiFi, you can expect it will do a much better job of going around hills, and any other conceivable obstacle. That should allow you to get connectivity in more spots than you otherwise would, but it's never going to work in all situations.

If you have two transceivers at opposite sides of the base of a mountain, no radio frequency is ever going to allow them to communicate directly (well, VLF will, but that's impractically slow, so let's ignore it for simplicity sake). If they have line of sight, just about any frequency will work. As the obstacle between them, blocking line-of-sight communication gets larger, lower frequencies are required to circumvent it.

Re:hills

[theaveng]

A 100 milliwatt WSD will travel about four football fields distance. If the WSD is broadcasting on VHF (channels 2-13), it won't be blocked by trees, but if it's broadcasting on UHF (channels 14-51), then trees will block the signal quite easily.

Re:hills

[molo]

If you have two transceivers at opposite sides of the base of a mountain, no radio frequency is ever going to allow them to communicate directly (well, VLF will, but that's impractically slow, so let's ignore it for simplicity sake).

I think you forgot to consider NVIS (near-vertical-incidence skywave) propagation.

From Wikipedia:

NVIS is most useful in mountainous areas where line-of-sight propagation at VHF or UHF frequencies is ineffective or when the communication distance is beyond ground wave (more than 50 miles) and less than sky-wave (300 to 1500 miles).

-molo

Re:hills

[evilviper]

I think you forgot to consider NVIS (near-vertical-incidence skywave) propagation.

No, I didn't. I'm simply not pedantic enough to mention every single irrelevant detail about a topic.

"Skip" of any kind is not relevant to the topic, nor practical in such scenario. You might also note I did say "directly," whereas a satellite, skywave skip, RF signal reflector, repeater, or many other devices would also work, but none of which would answer the question.

Re:Upload?

[zappepcs]

God help us all if that post is modded as informative!!

Re:Upload?

[wolfsdaughter]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

This is nonsense.

[chaboud]

While I love the idea of free and open internet communication (unlikely if we farm this out to Google and Microsoft), if they plan on using the performances they've seen in FCC tests as the benchmark, you can expect even your cable TV to cut out. I absolutely love the concept, but the simple fact is that current versions of these devices don't work, and Kevin Martin is for sale.

I'd put $50 on him ending up at Google or Microsoft within a year of leaving the FCC. Anyone who talks with the people who were at the white-space device tests knows that these devices failed miserably. If you think the iPhone (or any GSM phone, honestly) next to your speakers is annoying, just wait for these puppies.

Re:This is nonsense.

[electrictroy]

>>>I'd put $50 on him ending up at Google or Microsoft within a year of leaving the FCC.

Well sure! Multiple Congresspeople have written Kevin Martin and told him not to approve whitespace gadgets, or postpone further testing until after the Feb 18 transition. So if Mr. Martin goes-ahead and approves them anyway, he's likely to get fired by the Congress, and he'll need another job. /start sarcasm. I can't fault him if he decides Google/microsoft is his next best choice. /end sarcasm

Re:This is nonsense.

[electrictroy]

P.S. Looks like my comments about being fired are closer-to-the-truth than I realized:

On December 3, 2007, John Dingell (D) of the House Commerce Committee sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stating that "given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner." Martin is under investigation for a lack of transparency in FCC proceedings as well as an abuse of his power in relation to cable industry regulations. He has also been accused of keeping his fellow commissioners in the dark in an attempt to push through policy.

Re:Upload?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask your doctor to decrease the dose.

Re:Upload?

[theaveng]

>>>>. They will probably make some money for their efforts, but they deserve to make some cash for all that work.

Isn't the same true for the local TV stations broadcasting on channels 2 to 51? Don't you think they deserve the right to have their spectrum free of interference, and therefore free of white-space devices?

Or what about those who have invested ~$300 in antennas, digital converter boxes, and monitors to watch channels 2 to 51? Don't they ALSO deserve to have access to the over-the-air television in which they've invested lots of money, and free of interference from whitespace devices? The answer for me is "yes".

Wireless Audio Devices

[graphiteman]

Stories like this one make my head spin. For some reason, people simply can't seem to get the engineering issues through their heads.

Prototype devices tested by the FCC earlier this summer were shown to be capable of detecting Digital TV stations. However, they were not even close to capable of detecting wireless audio devices such as microphones, in-ear monitors, wireless intercom systems, and IFB devices. You may not realize it, but these devices are all around you, and chances are, they are mission-critical devices for television stations (think about reporters in the field), theatres (from your local high school to The Phantom on Broadway), professional sports (almost all professional sports games use copious amounts of wireless intercom and microphones), houses of worship (if you go to church, chances are you are in the vicinity of wireless microphones), concerts (almost all concerts rely on wireless microphones and in-ear monitors these days), and many other people.

All it takes is one single white space device to fire up on top of one of these wireless audio devices to knock it off the air, and there is no good solution - we cannot go digital, because of power and fidelity concerns; we cannot go to another band, because there are no real options (and because of the cost - it would cost my theater $50,000 to refit our space); and we cannot simply go "off the air."

Let us be clear as well about who will be using these white space devices. They will NOT be used to provide rural broadband (as one person noted above, this need is already covered by 900 MHz devices), at least in the beginning. The first devices to market will be gadgets like the iPhone that everyone will see as a "must have." It will work like Wi-Fi, but will cause far more interference because it will be everywhere - in church, in the theatre, and at the game.

All of this is not to say that it is impossible for white space devices to work together with wireless audio devices. All that is required is for white space devices to not transmit on top of a wireless audio device. In the future, wireless audio devices may be able to avoid other devices by themselves, but for now white space devices must bear the burden of not causing harmful interference to other users of the space (some of which are currently not licensed, and some of which are actually LICENSED for operating in the TV band!) But this is an engineering challenge, and not a political one. Let us hope that the FCC realizes this, and listens to its own engineers - and not politicians, lobbyists, and naysayers.

Re:Wireless Audio Devices

[electrictroy]

>>>people simply can't seem to get the engineering issues through their heads.

They understand, but they just don't care. They want their internet-capable whitespace Ipods/Cellphones/et cetera and they want them NOW, and they don't care who else might get harmed (over-the-air viewers, cable tv viewers, microphone users, intercom services) by their broadcasts over channels 2 to 51. In typical selfish-American fashion, they care about nothing but themselves.

My generation (the 80s) was called the Me Generation (as embodied by Madonna's Material Girl song), but today's Entitlement Generation seems far, far worse than anything we ever did. They don't care about "playing nice" with their neighbors; they will trample over other people and if that destroys television/wireless microphones and harms the users of those devices, then so be it.

"You have to break a couple eggs to make an omelet" said the Socialist Stalin, and that principle seems to apply today.

Re:Upload?

[eln]

He responded to a troll in an informative way using the troll's own native dialect. Sounds informative to me.

Examine the premises

[russotto]

1) Spectrum being freed up.

No. No spectrum is freed up by switching from analog to digital. A digital station takes up 6Mhz, same as an analog station. It's true that the FCC has relaxed adjacent channel restrictions, but any spectrum freed by that is balanced by the loss of channels 52-69, which have already been auctioned off. There's no truly free high-VHF or UHF slot between New York and Baltimore; spectrum's full.

2) WSDs being able to detect stations

For a WSD to reliably detect another transmitter, it would have to be as sensitive and have as good an antenna as the intended reciever. What are the chances of that, particularly in a portable device? Sure, your little iAndroZune with its 2" stub can't detect the channel, but my purpose-built TV tuner with a 10dBi antenna could pick it up fine... or it could, until the iAndroZune started stepping all over it.

3) Won't interfere even assuming it finds a white space
The front-end filters on TV tuners have about a 5-channel passband. A strong signal anywhere in there can cause the RF amp to overload or force the AGC to cut in and thus desensitize the tuner. One of the FCCs own studies showed it could be cause up to 70dB of sensitivity loss on adjecent channels, which makes the difference between very good reception and none at all. Furthermore, those of us using a pre-amp to receive weaker stations don't have the benefit of front-end filtering; a white space device anywhere in the band can cause problems throughout the band. Note that some of those little USB stick tuners don't have front-end filtering either.

Re:Examine the premises

[electrictroy]

>>>There's no truly free high-VHF or UHF slot between New York and Baltimore; spectrum's full.

Further than that! Pretty much the entire I-95 corridor from Southern New Hampshire to Richmond Virginia is booked-solid with television channels. There is virtually no whitespace. (My area has channels 2,3, and 4 open, but none of them is suitable for tiny Iphone/Ipod-like gadgets.)

>>>your little iAndroZune with its 2" stub can't detect the channel, but my purpose-built TV tuner with a 10dBi antenna could pick it up fine... or it could, until the iAndroZune started stepping all over it.

Quoted for truth.

Free the airwaves

[Twinbee]

There are very good reasons to allow public use of white space. Internet access prices should drop, wifi should become more widespread, and there's the tasty idea of mobile phone calls (at least local) becoming FREE, since they will communicate *directly* with each other.

Google are in fact in favour, and have created a website here. They sum it up pretty well.

Re:Upload?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for one pertinent instance of "fuck", all others removed and the grammar slightly altered to make up for it. Otherwise this is the exact same post as above.

--

The government, isn't trying to own the white space networks. Google and a few other companies are trying to do something good for society. People like you are trying to ruin everything because you can't understand common sense. They will probably make some money for their efforts, but for fucks sake, they deserve to make some cash for all that work. You, on the other hand, probably think that you alone are worthy of getting something for free while everybody else needs to pay. Perhaps next time you can read something about the issue before shooting off your mouth about shit you have no clue about?

--

Re:Upload?

[lysergic.acid]

naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.

having an unlicensed white-space broadband spectrum simply allows wireless broadband equipment manufacturers to use the white-space spectrum, which is currently monopolized by TV broadcasters and the occasional wireless microphone user. opening up the white-space spectrum to a more broadly useful (and increasingly vital) application has nothing to do with making you pay for someone else's internet access.

regardless of how it's going to be implemented/funded, these wireless devices will need a radio frequency range to operate on. so maybe you should go back to worrying about someone driving on the roads you paid for, or your neighbor's kids using textbooks purchased with your tax dollars. public education has more to do with socialism than the white-space wireless debate.

Tell me where broadcasters are

[unity100]

and get me my thick stick. ill talk to them in a language they can understand

Re:Tell me where broadcasters are

[electrictroy]

>>> Tell me where broadcasters are and get me my thick stick. ill talk to them in a language they can understand

Typical response from the Entitlement (spoiled) Generation. If you want something (like an A in college), even if you haven't earned it, then keep demand it over-and-over (until the prof gives in). And if that doesn't work, threaten them with physical violence.

Re:Tell me where broadcasters are

[unity100]

establish relevance in between what i said and what you replied.

License = limited monopoly

[unity100]

Licensing is not free market. licensing doesnt bolster competition. it creates a limited monopoly for those corporations who were able to buy those licenses.

imagine roads were privatized. imagine 10 companies bought roads, and used them as they wished, and charged anyone using them anything they wished.

do you think we would be in the level we are today as a civilization ?

we wouldnt.

there are some things, venues that need to be open to everyone, for anything, SO THAT competition, free market CAN happen.

FCC should vote totally in favor of this free spectrum. its necessary for betterment of mankind, leave aside internet access in a few locales.

Re:License = limited monopoly

[slysithesuperspy]

40,000 people die a year on roads just in the US alone, I think that makes the idea of private roads (or at least some other fundamental change to the current system) worthy enough to investigate more than your mind experiment:

". imagine 10 companies bought roads, and used them as they wished, and charged anyone using them anything they wished."

That isn't even an argument. Usually people are subject to economic so law they can't just magic stuff up. Hey! even if this did happen, how would that be any different to now? The government taxes people an insane amount and provides vague and shitty services and then goes around invading other countries.

Say, food is very important, why not let the government nationalise the food industry?! Wouldn't it solve all our problems? Obviously not, it can't even run the postal service. So why do people have such a double standard for government in many areas?

I am blatantly demagoguing the issue by mentioning, again, those 40,000 who die each year on the roads but isn't that alone just worth thinking about the role of government again? If a restaurant went bust people would blame the management, they wouldn't blame factors such as "it was in the wrong location" because that was a managerial/entrepreneurial decision.

And so I'm on topic, I hope they unlicense the whole spectrum! I can't quite see that happening though ;-)

Re:License = limited monopoly

[unity100]

Obviously not, it can't even run the postal service.

thats your problem in u.s. you people are bent on scuttling all kind of public services that you are not even letting your own government run its own postal service.

all kinds of services and then some more work perfectly in europe, and on top of it a FAIR free market exists too.

Re:Upload?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Imagine that everyone has Internet access,

Everyone (mostly) already does. POTS. Yes, it is becoming increasingly harder to use it, due to bloated websites, but it is there and pretty damn universal.

I know among the geekazoids in here, POTS is a dirty word. But a lot of people still use it, by choice.

Fscking (lack of) mod points...

[znerk]

Except for one pertinent instance of "fuck", all others removed and the grammar slightly altered to make up for it. Otherwise this is the exact same post as above.

The government isn't trying to own the white space networks. Google and a few other companies are trying to do something good for society. People like you are trying to ruin everything because you can't understand common sense. They will probably make some money for their efforts, but for fucks sake, they deserve to make some cash for all that work. You, on the other hand, probably think that you alone are worthy of getting something for free while everybody else needs to pay. Perhaps next time you can read something about the issue before shooting off your mouth about shit you have no clue about?

Wish I had some mod points for this AC post. Thank you for making it easier to understand wtf he was trying to say.

Amateur radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't mind having it licensed for HAM radio.

Re:Upload?

[Mr. Slippery]

Dude. I think you need to take your fucking medication. Or go get a good fuck and relieve some of that fucking stress. Fuckin' A.

Re:Upload?

[jhol13]

naturally municipal WiFi/WiMax deployment would be handled by the municipal government.

You mean something like: http://www.panoulu.net/?

They (or us) just upgraded to MobileWiMAX.

begging

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't even ten houses on this stretch of the road, and the wires (phone and electric) end here. Actually six houses, just added it up in my head, between me and the nearest telco box, which is three miles away. I asked the phone tech when I had my landline put in when I could get DSL, he said "never, unless the government forces us to". That is exactly what he said, half sneering about it. That's out and so is cable connection, for the same reason, although a mile either way on the road the housing gets dense enough they have all the options, just not down at my end, where there are only two houses, the other four are probably within range for DSL at least and I would guess cable, I see comcast trucks going by now and then. Guess I'll hold out until "4G" wireless telco service becomes available...., because none of the existing lower power wireless solutions work here either, although I get full bars on my cellphone inside the house, the local providers have *really* lousy data plans, just not worth it at all really. It would cost me well over 100 bucks a month to get not as much total monthly bandwith as I get with dialup, that's for sure, maybe more, I remember going to a few local bigname telcos and looking into it, shoooot, no way. Way too expensive. Those "unlimited data" plans are a big fat lie, at least all the major telcos I looked at, the usual subjects, att, verizon, t mobile, etc. No 3G or 3.5G here, just that edge or evdo stuff. I looked into satellite, none of the providers "allow" linux, they insist on windows or osx, they won't even come out and install it when I asked them to, flat out refused, even though I think that is probably BS, that's what they said. And I am not going to run windows, so..oh well, I'll struggle by with what I have now, even though it costs way more than cheap DSL, the prices I have seen people say they pay.

Re:begging

[theaveng]

>>>when I could get DSL, he said "never, unless the government forces us to"

Then that's what needs to happen. The government initiated the "rural access fee" in order to force phone companies to serve rural residents, and now it's time for that fee to be used to force the Telcos to upgrade the local switching stations with DSL capability.

Upgrading already-installed telephone wire is the cheapest, quickest way to provide broadband nationwide. In the meantime, may I suggest Netscape ISP? They use dialup combined with image compression to make webpages load as fast as my home DSL connection. That's what I use when I'm traveling in areas without broadband.

Channels not being used?

[Skapare]

And how are they going to properly detect which channels are not being used? There are places where signals are present on virtually every channel except in the "lo band" (channels 2 to 6) and the reserved channel 37. These signals can be very weak, and not even detectable with a cheap antenna (rabbit ears or a simple loop for UHF), while fully receivable with a decent antenna. Some low power transmitter nearby with just a tiny antenna would fail to detect the transmitted signal, has no way to know what is being received by anyone, and would disrupt the TV signal.

The TV spectrum is actually shrinking. There are fewer channels available. While the digital technology can deal with things like stations being on adjacent channels, that allows for fewer TV channels, this capability is how the removal of channels 52-69 has been justified.

The FCC has also severely limited applications for new TV stations during the digital transition. After the transition is over (February 2009 is just the big peak, not the end), more new station applications are expected, especially for low power stations.

Using the radio spectrum for fixed point to fixed point connections on land is the wrong use. What we need, instead, is for "last mile fiber" to be installed to each home and business, and allow that fiber to be used at the other end by the provider chosen by the home dweller or business operator that it terminates at. Eventually, all TV should even go that way, which would free up even more spectrum (174-216 MHz, 470-608 MHz, 614-698 MHz), for mobile services where being tethered by a wire or fiber is not an option.

Re:Upload?

[znerk]

But nobody answered the first question.

I assume you meant this one:

How would folks upload on this 'third pipe'?

... and I think everyone else assumed you'd understand how signal transmission works, and that you only need a transmitter powerful enough to reach a repeater... which, using mesh networking technology, could be as close as the nearest cell phone or other WSD.

Licensing is better

[PPH]

I'd prefer licensed operations in the whitespace. That way, the FCC could ensure that the equipment and its operation would not cause interference prior to allowing its operation. The alternative is that substandard equipment will make its way onto the market and will then have to be hunted down after it triggers numerous complaints.

WSD = White Screen of Death

[Anonymous Coward]

WSD will cause massive problems, even if someone with a clue was
doing it. There is NO WAY that a WSD can possibly know if it
would cause interference. And then look at who is pushing this.
Microshit can't do ANYTHING right. What makes anyone think those
idiots can do the impossible?

Playing for time...

[dpilot]

Seems odd to me that the broadcasters are playing for time. If there is an Obama presidency beginning next year, I'd expect an FCC realignment much less likely to give big players whatever they want. At some point in this whole whitespace debate, I seem to remember hearing that they were seeking no triple-adjacency for any whitespace devices. No single adjacency is understandable, double-adjacency is pushing it, but triple adjacency is ridiculous. That was a snapshot - I have no idea where the debate went after that.

I also remember hearing that the devices used in the first - the one that failed interference requirements, used fatally flawed hardware, and was supposed to be considered invalid. I've heard nothing of a retest.

Rural Communities Could Benefit

[Cornwallis]

In large cities I agree that what you say has been happening. But there have been successes in smaller communities and that is where this may thrive. Look at Ripton, VT. as an example - it is a success.

Re:Upload?

[lysergic.acid]

yea, pretty much. btw, how's the quality of the wireless internet access you guys get? are you a student at one of the universities or just a local resident?

i expect most cities will have some sort of public wireless internet access in a couple of years. university towns tend to be more progressive, both culturally and technologically, so it'd make sense that they'd adopt municipal WiFi/WiMax before other cities, but there are already several non-college-town cities here in Southern California that have free public WiFi access. and the quality of service seems to be on par or better than the paid commercial WiFi hotspots at airports in most cases.

Whitespace is *already* licensed

[sunderland56]

The FCC has already licensed the frequencies in question.... to the television stations. Each TV station gets unfettered access to a 6 MHz wide band - nothing limits what they do with that freqency band. So I'm not sure exactly how the FCC can license those same frequencies a second time. Legally, I think the NAB and the TV stations own these frequencies and should fight to retain them. If these frequencies are so valuable, the current owners should be the ones to profit if they choose to sublicense them.

Re:Whitespace is *already* licensed

[roju]

First, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say things like the NAB and stations "own" the frequencies. Public airwaves are a tough thing to "own". To address your main point though, many frequencies are licensed to multiple users. For instance, the 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum also overlaps the 13cm ham band, and the ISM band.

Start with Military and Safety whitespace

[TheSync]

If these whitespace devices are so good at detecting and avoiding interference, why don't we also put them in military, fire, and police whitespace...

It's easier to detect than to use a signal

[Anonymous Coward]

If all you have to do is see if there's someone using a band, you don't need the resolution to decode the signal, just detect it.

Much easier and so therefore doable with a much less efficient system

Exhibit #1

[gbutler69]

The wonderfully funcitoning Stock Market, Banking System, and Mortgage markets in the U.S.

Re:Upload?

[jhol13]

I'm resident (there is only one university in the city, but several faculties).

Where I live the quality is zero :-) ... or at least was before WiMAX. I have not checked if I can get reception of that - yet.

Downtown the reception (bandwidth) is good enough for example to update Ubuntu. Not as fast as ADSL, but OK.

There are people who use it as their only Internet connection and are happy. They might not be power users, but hey, it is free (in a sense, I do pay taxes ...).

Mesh networks routing?

[Cacadril]

Nearest cell phone... Is there no routing? What prevents a message from being propagated all the way to Tierra del Fuego and back, and down there again, and... If sombody has a pointer to a proper answer, I'd like to have a look.