Slashdot Mirror
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."
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'.
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.
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.
Can all fish swim?
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
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 .
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh