FCC Approves Unlicensed Use of White-Space Spectrum

sidesh0w was one of a number of readers to alert us to the FCC's unanimous decision approving unlicensed devices to use the white spaces of the spectrum unused by television broadcasters, provided they take certain precautions not to interfere with licensed users. "Denying a tremendous last-minute lobbying effort by broadcasters, the vote on white space devices went ahead as planned today after a several-hour delay at FCC headquarters. When the vote came, though, it was unanimous. For the Democrats on the Commission, the devices are appealing because they offer a potential new avenue for broadband services, while the Republicans are pleased for the same reasons, but love the fact that this is a deregulatory order that focuses on less regulation and more competition."

Comments

Wait.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Did somebody just describe God's Own Crony Capitalists(tm) as loving competition?

Re:Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. Republicans are all for small gov't, less regulation. this extends to markets. of course, this also means that if capitalism works, monopolies form, and competition ends.

Re:Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been living under a rock for the last two decades?

Re:Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. A rock serviced by one single broadband provider, one power company, one water company, and no other choices.

Now you have a chance to tell me that running water is a luxury. Go on, i'm waiting...

Re:Wait.

[Darkness404]

Ummm... Actually if everything was deregulated, monopolies would not form and we would have thriving capitalism. Unfortunately the Republicans won't abolish the hindrances such as patents, absurd copyright, etc. which leads to monopolies.

Re:Wait.

[Tubal-Cain]

Wishful thinking. The only monopolies that wouldn't last would be those that provide software

Re:Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because of Democrats, MORON!

Re:Wait.

[ClassMyAss]

Ummm... Actually if everything was deregulated, monopolies would not form and we would have thriving capitalism.

Yes. Please do explain to us the market forces that lead to a reigning monopoly that has already extended its reach across several industries ceding power to the up and coming soon-to-be competitors that it could otherwise crush without any trouble at all by using the tried and true anti-competitive tactics that we've all become far too familiar with. And explain why it would be in the best interest of the monopoly to do such a thing.

The problem is that deregulation is not enough to prevent monopolies; economies of scale, business arrangements with material suppliers, and other barriers to entry make it so that an unregulated monopoly can very easily hold on to power without having to worry about competition, simply because it can threaten to pull business from anyone that would otherwise help out the competitors. This has happened before (see the Microsoft + OEM crapfest, which was as monopolistic and anti-competitive as things get, and a textbook case of free market failure - literally the only way to prevent such a situation is to make the business tactic illegal), so don't try and pretend that this is merely a theoretical problem.

Re:Wait.

[that this is not und]

Here's your clue for the night: "everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly?

'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.

Re:Wait.

[NickFortune]

I don't think I'll ever understand the thinking behind that notion.

The way I see it, the most perfect free market that ever has or ever can exist is that embodied in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens in the physical universe that doesn't involve an exchange of energy. There is no regulation. There are no free lunches. Everyone pays the going rate. And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.

And if, in the one system we know that is fundamentally beyond regulation, a single body can grow so powerful as to swallow up all within its sphere of influence, why do we suppose this to be impossible in economic systems? It seems like pure magical thinking to me.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

Well if THIS republican was in power (me), you wouldn't have just one service. There's enough room in underground pipes to run cables from Time-Warner, Comcast, Cox, Verizon, and allow each customer to choose their own company. This competition would ultimately drive-down prices due to positive pressure from angry homeowners. The Dish Company currently provides cable channels for as low as $20 a month. I suspect cable competition would lead to a similar pricing scheme, and which would benefit all citizens by helping them save money.

As for power, water, and so forth, I don't know how I would fix that. There's not enough room to run multiple water lines, so we'd probably have to stick with the current model (private companies but price-fixed by government).

>>>"Initially ALL devices must access a database of prohibited channels, based on location....and undergo certification."

This is VERY BAD NEWS, because the database will determine my WSD-equipped neighbor is in the Lancaster-Harrisburg DMA, and decide that channels from nearby DMAs like Baltimore and Philadelphia are not being used. Then it will start broadcasting directly over top the Baltimore/Philly channels.

This is the same way Dish and Directv markets are setup. Your "locals" are only those stations inside your DMA. Other stations from nearby cities don't exist as far as they are concerned, and the Whitespace devices will likely operate on the same principle of ignoring nearby cities.

I may as well sell my antenna now and jump onto cable, since I will soon have WSDs trampling all over my long-distance channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 29, 35, 45, 57, and 65..... thereby making the antenna worthless for over-the-air reception from Baltimore or Philly.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

>>>And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.

Yes but even they (black holes) eventually succumb to Thermodynamics and die-out. They gradually lose their energy and dissipate, and the universe becomes a vast nothing with no objects left except random electrons scattered throughout, and a universal average temperature of about -272 Celsius (heat death).

   

Re:Wait.

[thannine]

Here's your clue for the night: "everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly?

'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.

By buying out it's competitors, forcing all the other players on the field to only do business with them. Forcing TV stations not to run ads for their competitors etc... They have the means. They have the money. It's the regulation that's keeping them from doing that (mostly).

Re:Wait.

[hedwards]

You do realize that Adam Smith, the founder of capitalist theory says you're wrong, right? Complete deregulation always leads to a one provider monopoly over absolutely all goods and services. There isn't any other possibility, eventually one business gains enough resources to start merging and ultimately wins out over all the other companies.

There's a reason why regulations exist and it is precisely to prevent that sort of scenario from playing out. The Republican party chooses to be ignorant of capitalism so that they can justify wealth redistribution up the income ladder.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

>>>one business gains enough resources to start merging and ultimately wins out over all the other companies.

And then several new guys arrive on the scene, and they undercut the monopoly with lower prices, thereby restoring competition. One obvious example is the downloadable MP3, which killed the 1990s-eras monopoly on music (CDs and cassettes) that Sony and Philips once held.

I'm sure there are many, many other examples out there where a monopoly's back was broken by new innovative or cost-cutting competitors.

Re:Wait.

[NickFortune]

"everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly? 'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.

That only works with software though. The GP used MS as an example, but his point was wider than that.

Removing copyrights wouldn't stop one firm from consolidating all the gas stations in the US into one giant chain, for example.

(I could have sworn I posted this earlier. Must have forgot to hit "submit")

Re:Wait.

[knails]

The reason you have only one broadband provider, one power company, et c. is because of the regulation in those industries. Deregulation is always a good thing for competition - it allows for startups to change the rules and provide choice to consumers.

Re:Wait.

[NickFortune]

Yes but even they (black holes) eventually succumb to Thermodynamics and die-out

True enough. And similarly, I suppose, once formed, a monopoly must eventually fail and fall apart by itself. The trouble is that it's still not a good idea to allow them to form. They do tremendous damage to the economy while they exist, and we don't have any real grounds for speculating about how long it would take them to break up. We don't know what the economic equivalent of Hawking radiation is. And we really don't want to have to wait for the heat death of the universe in order to find out.

Re:Wait.

[evilviper]

And then several new guys arrive on the scene, and they undercut the monopoly with lower prices, thereby restoring competition.

"Economies of scale" says otherwise. The larger the company, the lower their costs per-item, and in most cases that is a HUGE price difference.

I'm sure there are many, many other examples out there where a monopoly's back was broken by new innovative or cost-cutting competitors.

A few, but there are many, many more where a monopoly used its money and influence to embrace said new technologies, while keeping prices rather high.

Note that all the electric-car startups are having next to zero effect on the market, while Toyota, Ford, GM, etc. are slowly jumping onto that bandwagon. You can't out-compete a heavily entrenched competitor.

Re:Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, powerful businesses use regulations as barriers to entry into the field. if the regulations are stringent enough small businesses do not have the resources to compete _and_ afford the lawyers to jump the hurdles.

Re:Wait.

[penix1]

The reason you have only one broadband provider, one power company, et c. is because of the regulation in those industries. Deregulation is always a good thing for competition - it allows for startups to change the rules and provide choice to consumers.

That's untrue. The reason is because of physical infrastructure. Having the streets dug up on a weekly basis by competing companies to run 200 gas lines is physically unfeasible especially in built up areas. The grant on monopoly in the case of utilities, and the regulation that goes with that grant of monopoly, is a byproduct of the physical constraint.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene. They either (a) offer new alternatives or (b) undercut the monopoly's prices. Case in point: Sony & Philips had a monopoly on music distribution in the form of CDs and Compact Cassettes.

Along came cheaper MP3 downloads and now the Sony/Philips music distribution monopoly no longer exists.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

"Economies of scale" says otherwise. The larger the company, the lower their costs per-item, and in most cases that is a HUGE price difference.

I don't agree with you, but if we assume you are correct: Where's the harm in having a monopoly? As you point-out, economy of scale makes the product cheaper. Why are you anti-monopoly?

monopoly keeps prices rather high.

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. ----- If it's the latter, then a new startup company (Theaveng Company) can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.

Re:Wait.

[elton247]

The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.)

A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.

The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entryâ"the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.

Re:Wait.

[NickFortune]

But as I pointed-out elsewhere, a monopoly can not last forever because new innovators arrive on the scene.

Hmmm... you're just re-stating your point rather than adding support for it. Yes, monopolies will probably die naturally given a long enough time scale. I understand and accept that. My points in reply to this are:

• While we're waiting for this to happen, monopolies can be tremendously damaging to the economy.
• We have no way to predict how long we need to wait for the monopoly to die naturally. It might be longer than our lifespan. Just waiting is not a sensible approach.

Having a monopoly control a market for its own ends is just as much a violation of free a market as any amount of government control. And in the case of the monopoly this control will probably be a lot worse, since the monopoly lacks even the most notional responsibility to act in anyone's interest but its own. Moreover, since it is a monopoly, there is no way for market forces to compel responsible behaviour.

I'm sorry, but I think that letting monopolies form in the hope and expectation that they will die out of their own accord is a little naive and extremely foolish.

Re:Wait.

[LunaticTippy]

This isn't hard to understand. A monopoly will have lower costs but higher prices.

If a competitor comes along, the deep pockets and lower costs will allow the monopoly to undercut the startup as long as it takes to drive them out of business and then jack the prices back up. Read some American history or take a look at Mexico's economy.

Re:Wait.

[evilviper]

Where's the harm in having a monopoly?

The primary "harm" is that Libertarian theory states that a monopoly can't exist under a system with no regulation. ie. That all monopolies are the direct result of government intervention, either directly establishing them (like the telcos, public utilities, etc.) or erecting barriers in the form of relevant legislation (like product safety laws, labor laws, whatever...) that prevents small competitors from starting up without large amounts of cash. My whole point is that the theory is wrong, and natural economic forces almost always trend toward monopolies, which will continue to gain more and more power.

In the more general sense, just search for "monopolistic behavior" or "anti-competitive tactics" and you'll surely find no end to the listing of harm large competitors have tried doing to unfairly eliminate their smaller counterparts, which is only stopped by have a strong government that forbids such behaviors in the name of the public interest.

Re:Wait.

[Darkness404]

My whole point is that the theory is wrong, and natural economic forces almost always trend toward monopolies, which will continue to gain more and more power.

Ummm... Wrong. Lets take an example: gas.

Company A has a large oil reserve, it takes the oil, refines it, and makes gas.

Company B has a smaller, but still large oil reserve, takes the oil, refines it, and makes gas.

Company C has an even smaller oil reserve that is running out to make gas.

So the most logical solution would be that company A buys out companies B and C giving it a monopoly, however, citizens don't like the high price of gas and make cars that run on something else other than gas, the monopoly dissolves as the new technology replaces them. Why doesn't this happen more often? Because there are patents. Take out patents and Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc could all collaborate indirectly via reverse engineering and make a better electric car. So citizens buy those cars and they prosper, and it goes on and on. Yes, there might be very short term monopolies, but take out patents and copyrights and current monopolies would collapse in a very short amount of time and the lawyer problem to entry dissolves.

In the more general sense, just search for "monopolistic behavior" or "anti-competitive tactics" and you'll surely find no end to the listing of harm large competitors have tried doing to unfairly eliminate their smaller counterparts, which is only stopped by have a strong government that forbids such behaviors in the name of the public interest.

Name one major monopoly that hasn't been directly or indirectly caused by the government. Then go to places where there is either no, or very little patent enforcement and you will see much, much, less monopolies then here in the US or in Europe.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

Yes, but there's no reason why you can't have multiple Cable TV or Internet providers. Wires don't take-up much space, so it should be a simple task to run multiple companies through the same underground pipe:

- Comcast
- Cox
- Time-Warner
- Verizon

Every home should be wired to multiple providers, so that the consumer has multiple choices.

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

At least with a private monopoly, you have the choice to "opt out". Comcast has a monopoly in my area, but its rates are outrageously high, so I simply decided to opt-out of giving them my money. I'd like to see you try to do the same with a Government Monopoly (for example: Medicare).

A government monopoly is even worse than a private monopoly. I'd rather have the later, than the former, especially since the latter has the possibility of new companies being born to break-up the monopoly. (Like Dish or Directv satellite. Or Verizon FiOS.)

Re:Wait.

[theaveng]

I disagree. If monopolies actually could "undercut" other businesses, we'd all still be listing to Sony/Philips Comcast Discs or Compact Cassettes, not downloadable songs.

As for American history, a lot of companies were *falsely* declared monopolies (by power-hungry politicians) when in fact there was plenty of competition, and no monopoly existed.

Re:Wait.

[NickFortune]

At least with a private monopoly, you have the choice to "opt out". Comcast has a monopoly in my area, but its rates are outrageously high, so I simply decided to opt-out of giving them my money. I'd like to see you try to do the same with a Government Monopoly (for example: Medicare).

I'm sorry, but that logic is broken in so many ways it's hard to keep track of them all. For one thing, you're presenting a false dichotomy - either we allow private monopolies, or else government ones are inevitable. This is plainly not the case - there are many, many nations that have limited government regulation of commerce and industry where there are neither government or private monopolies. It's a basic logical fallacy.

Secondly, you don't always have the option of opting out. Suppose the monopoly is on food? Unless you have a farm, it's unlikely that you can achieve self sufficiency in this area, and if you can, it still requires a complete change of lifestyle for most people. Supposing the monopoly is for fuel? Or electricity? Opting out is not practical in all cases.

Thirdly, your example is rather comparing apples with aardvarks. There's a world world of difference between internet access with almost everyone can live without, and medical care, without which we can live but for rather a shorter period of time.

Fourthly, even given a private monopoly on a given area of business, what stops you from opting out of that? Do they shoot you if you don't use the service?

Fifthly, and most importantly of all, it's a complete red herring. What the blue bloody blazes does that have to do with the question of whether or not it's sensible to allow monopolies to arise in the hope that they will dissipate naturally before they can do any real damage?

A government monopoly is even worse than a private monopoly. I'd rather have the later, than the former,

And I'd rather have neither, thank you. See previous comments about false dichotomies.

especially since the latter has the possibility of new companies being born to break-up the monopoly

Still not a justification for removing anti-monopoly laws. It'd be a bit like repealing the laws against taking human life on the grounds that "murderers tend to get what's coming to them anyway". OK, it's probably true in a certain proportion of cases. However, neither murder nor monopoly is a practice any sane society really wants to encourage.

Also, I think you're focusing too much on the IT sector and not considering the ramification of your proposal in less volatile sectors. Let's go back to food - suppose someone consolidates all the retail outlets and distribution networks. What are you going to do? Do you wait until food is downloadable over the Internet? Do you start researching gene therapy to let you photosynthesise sunlight? I'm not ruling out either one happening, but I don't think it's smart to bet your life that we'd see either one within our lifetime - which is what you'd have to do if you wanted to opt out of a food monopoly.

What about the Ghosts?

[Mysteerie]

You know the ghost that uses the white space to communicate on the tv and recorders? Won't they get pissed now that thier channels are getting clogged? Sigh... don't mind me... stupid stupid corny joke... lala

Re:What about the Ghosts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's a relief. I was worried about my white noise cd for a minute there...

Re:What about the Ghosts?

[hellwig]

Oh man, I accidently modded this Offtopic, what the hell, why isn't there a confirmation or something. Thankfully my actions aren't overpowering to this system.

Anyway, I never saw that White Noise movie with Michael Keaton, but if licensing the White Spaces would have prevented it, then I'm all for it.

Oh, I can undo the moderation by posting this very comment. Awesome.

Re:What about the Ghosts?

[malakai]

By posting in the conversation your moderations are rolled back.

Re:What about the Ghosts?

[sabrex15]

As an Amateur Radio operator, I have looked at several articles including the one linked from /., and the one on NY Times. Does anyone have an idea about what frequencies they are speaking of? Thanks

THEY WILL REGRET THIS!

[mrSteveBallmer]

Watch the Linux and Mac freaks fill up the entire thing with porn! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Re:Great! More interference

[plover]

I can't wait to have my cordless phone screw up my TV signal! Wee!

Your new phone won't interfere with your TV, as your TV does not use this spectrum. Your new phone will only interfere with other devices currently using this band. It's no different than your 2.4GHz phone interfering with your WiFi today.

The reason this is such a "fun" decision is that a large number of wireless microphones (used by entertainers, churches, actors in theatres, musicians, etc.) have been illegally occupying this spectrum for many years. That's right, they've been squatting spectrum that they should not have been using, and when this announcement came out all these "performers" started whining that they'd have to buy something else.

I think this is the ideal punishment for those lawbreakers: too freakin' bad, you should have been purchasing and licensing COMPLIANT equipment all along, morons! Now you get to pay for it twice! It makes me happy.

Between WhiteSpace and 700Mhz,

[theGreater]

... I, for one, welcome our multi-frequency overlords. But seriously, fractal antennas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna ) and golomb rulers ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/26/0037258 ) just got even more important. And I will of course be happy to assist them in finding handsets to toil in their data mines.

Re:Great! More interference

[Majik Sheff]

Wow, that was an incredibly bitter and spiteful comment.

What happened that makes you wish harm on complete strangers that likely had no idea that their devices were problematic?

Now hold on a minute!

[Radical Moderate]

Republicans AND Democrats are happy about this? We are so screwed.

Re:Now hold on a minute!

[db32]

But the broadcasters are unhappy...

I seriously don't know what to think now.

Re:Now hold on a minute!

[theleoandtherat]

You wouldn't want to auto-program channels on your TV. I would be 80% political ads channels.

Re:Now hold on a minute!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I'm trying to figure out why the hell the blurb even brought that up. I don't give a rip whether or why any of the politicos are happy with an FCC decision (unless they decide to try to outlaw it).

The spectrum use is far more interesting to me.

Re:Great! More interference

[billcopc]

Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!

The whole concept of licensing airwaves is loopy to begin with. Who "owns" the airwaves ? Not the US Gov't nor the FCC. I respect the need for some regulation, mainly to ensure operability, but that's roughly where my concern ends.

Transmitter Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that whoever has the most powerful transmitter in an area will be able to drown out all other broadcasts on a given frequency?

Re:Transmitter Power

[lysergic.acid]

i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices. most-likely these protocols will be designed to detect whether a particular band or frequency is occupied by another device and try to find one that isn't. they'll probably also be designed to jump to a different band/frequency if a new source of interference is detected on the current band/frequency.

now, whether other devices/applications will play nice is yet to be seen. i don't know if the frequencies used in wireless microphones are configurable, but they probably aren't sophisticated enough for this kind of band negotiation. the other main source of interference would be TV transmissions, and they are generally fixed (and much more powerful), so any wireless broadband devices would have to work around them.

Re:Transmitter Power

[Stellian]

i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices.

I would extend the question further: what happens in a competitive environment where:
- providers compete among each other to serve as much customers as possible over whitespace ?
- customers compete among each other to maximize their own download speed ?

I realize the devices are themselves approved by FCC, but what happens when you can improve the quality of service by hacking the firmware ? How many people will refuse to install the "double your bandwidth" hacked firmware, that just so happens to disable any spectrum sensing and pump out bits at the hight power level available, and also disables FCC's ability to patch remotely ?

If two providers are operating in an area, and they have similar base stations, but have a different number of customers, how will the free spectrum be divided to avoid a destructive arms-race:
- each base station receives a fair share, so the ISP with fewer customers offers better service; In this case would setting up more base-stations offer a competitive edge, although they are not technically required ?
- each customer receives a fair share ? What's a "customer" ? Bridging more devices will increase my bandwidth ?

How can different service levels be enforced, assuming the only limitation is the available spectrum, not the fiber-optic backbone ?

Per Shannon's law, the bandwidth is proportional with available spectrum and power level, and decreases with distance (noise).
What about remote users, who necessarily require more power/spectrum for the same bandwidth ? Is it worth to sacrifice 5Mbps from a near user, to give 50Kbps to a distant user ? More importantly, who makes that trade-off when the two customers are served by different ISPs ?

Re:Transmitter Power

[theaveng]

>>How many people will refuse to install the "double your bandwidth" hacked firmware, that just so happens to disable any spectrum sensing and pump out bits at the highest power level available, and also disables FCC's ability to patch remotely ?
>>>

Thanks. You just ruined my day. If the firmware can be hacked in your whitespace-equipped Ipod, you could also disable the TV-protective database, and broadcast your Ipod signals directly overtop of existing channels (like WGAL in my area).

Re:Great! More interference

[Skye16]

Right, so the only people who own the airwaves are those who can shout over all the others.

Might makes right, motherfuckers!

Re:Great! More interference

[SaDan]

If you have ever had to deal with RF interference as a primary duty for your job, you'd feel even more hostile than the previous poster.

Re:Great! More interference

[taucross]

Call me a troll.. +1 parent

Re:Great! More interference

[plover]

Harm? I'm not wishing harm on them nearly as much as I'm cheering the equality that's being forced upon them. If they want interference-free equipment, they'll now have to license it just like everyone else.

I have ALWAYS paid for my FCC licenses because the law says I'm supposed to. They didn't, and never have.

I might have had one ounce of sympathy if they didn't rise up as a group crying when someone else wanted to share their sandbox. But no, they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place, and now the FCC has said "it's a public sandbox and everyone else gets to play there too."

Let the lawsuits begin....

[russotto]

Pretty much no doubt the NAB is going to sue over this, right?

Re:Let the lawsuits begin....

[Starayo]

I asked a NAB employee about that, and he said, I quote:

"The National Australia Bank has no comment on this issue."

The plot thickens.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin....

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's just because their wireless microphones are being jammed by White-Space devices...

Re:Let the lawsuits begin....

[KDR_11k]

It gets worse, I hear Switzerland is neutral on the issue!

Re:Let the lawsuits begin....

[that this is not und]

All the NAB has to do is distribute some sensitive equipment, with training manuals, to a number of people around the country. They train how to detect infringing devices. They follow the steps in the manual to report the infringing devices. A crack legal team at the NAB receives notifications from said people.

I imagine it wouldn't be hard for a lot of cease and desist orders to be issued at a fairly low cost per order, if a well-organized campaign was organized. Said group of trained people proceed to run whitespace device vendors out of market with a 'chipping away' strategy of driving the whitespace device customers into returning the infringing devices to stores where they were purchased.

Remember, these devices can only be used if they are non-infringing on other, licensed uses. A small army of well-trained advocates of watching TV for free would be easy to pull together.

Re:Great! More interference

[Jahf]

"Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!"

Actually yes, yes it has. Multiple times.

And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it ... and for free ... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well ... bone up ... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.

And you're sitting there going off about how no one "owns" the airwaves? That sounds like the position of someone in favor of deregulation. Guess what this judgement just did for those frequencies? That's right. Deregulated them.

Re:Great! More interference

[plover]

Why yes, my life has indeed been negatively impacted. I've been paying the FCC for licenses to use a tiny portion of the spectrum. And I've been supporting more than my fair share because these scofflaws have not been paying at all.

Without the revenue from the licenses, we would have no regulatory body, and without rules we simply would not have any working RF devices at all. A few giant broadcasters would be pumping megawatts into a handful of megastations, and we'd probably be getting nothing but crappy AM radio leaking interference into every electronic device in existence. Nobody would be responsible for ensuring their signals are of high quality and don't leak. Tiny signals would be drowned out. Cell phones would be impossible, as would any of the GPRS / 3G / EDGE type networking solutions. The fact that the FCC has provided this badly needed regulation says to me that they're an effective body (despite Pacifica and the censorship issues.)

And the licenses pay for it all. My license and my dollars have paid for my small portion of it. Their money has not. It's time for them to pick up the slack since they're reaping the benefit.

Re:Great! More interference

[MindlessAutomata]

Just imagine what would happen if a ton of different, say, "devices" used the same range of frequency for day-to-day communication. It'd be a nightmare; they wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

Re:Great! More interference

[lysergic.acid]

the radio spectrum is a limited public resource. it's something that is incredibly useful (and increasingly vital) but has to be shared by everyone. therefore, in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons, it has to be regulated.

and really, the best way to regulate it is through licensing. though how it is licensed could probably use some improvement. and if you are against licensing airwaves, then why are you complaining about the FCC's approval of the unlicensed use of the white-space spectrum?

the people who bitch about how this will affect their TV reception or wireless microphones are basically claiming this entire unlicensed block for themselves and are trying to prevent the development of wireless technologies that are much more broadly useful to the general public. why should they alone be allowed to benefit from this shared public resource? why should their private interests be placed above public interest?

wireless microphones and wireless broadband are not mutually exclusive. but that requires that people be considerate when developing their wireless technologies and implementing wireless applications in the white-space spectrum. i mean, when you use an unlicensed spectrum you should naturally expect to have other devices residing on the same frequencies. that's why it's an unlicensed spectrum.

now that we have a black president

[Anonymous Coward]

does that mean the politics section will suddenly disappear so any criticism of him will be modded to hell as off-topic?

Re:now that we have a black president

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh, most certainly. I simply can't imagine a more rabidly politically correct bunch than Slashdotters.

/sarcasm

Please don't confuse ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Did somebody just describe God's Own Crony Capitalists(tm) as loving competition?

Please don't confuse the Neocon faction currently in control of the Republican party electoral machinery (and most of the (R) seats in the congress) with conservatives. B-)

Republicans in appointed and bureaucratic positions are more likely to be from the other factions - some of which give more than lip service to economic freedom (which emphatically includes competition and excludes government action selectively helping favorites).

Re:Please don't confuse ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't. Unfortunately, judging from the fact that the Neocon faction is currently in control of the electoral machinery and most of the party's seats, a bloody lot of alleged conservatives apparently do.

Re:Please don't confuse ...

[afidel]

An interesting idea I saw posted a couple days ago regarding the Neocons machine and this election:

I keep getting a mental image of McCain on election night, looking broken, then walking off stage, shutting himself alone in a room, and out comes an enormous creepy grin. He immediately picks up a phone, dials a number, and says, "Hello, Karl? Yeah, how do you like your permanent majority now? Payback's a biatch, fat boy," then hangs up.

Yeah, expect a lot more of that sort of trouble.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You know the ghost that uses the white space to communicate on the tv and recorders? Won't they get pissed now that thier channels are getting clogged?

Sure.

Remember what they already did to that little kid in _Poltergeist_? We can expect a LOT more of that.

Good news just keep coming in

[unity100]

the good decisions fcc took in the last few months, obama leading 200 to 100 in eastern states, (even getting florida), and now this.

unspeakable joy.

Re:Good news just keep coming in

[Anonymous Coward]

God I hope they are. It's the only thing that'll save us.

Re:Good news just keep coming in

[Anonymous Coward]

obama leading 200 to 100 in eastern states

What does this have to do with white space?

Re:Great! More interference

[Meest]

Do you do any research into this subject?

Musician's and production company's have not been ABLE to buy the correct licensing to run the microphones in the first place!

In order to get the permit you have to be a licensed broadcaster or broadcast media creator. Then you can get a permit.

So in a sense the musician's and company's that use these pieces of equipment aren't even able to get the correct licensing by law because of the law.

And as for buying something else. Please tell me where I may buy a Sennheiser EW300G2 IEM system that is in a correct frequency band?? Thats right, they don't make any!

So lets see if I have all your arguments here.

Q. They don't have the licensing
A. They can't get the licensing because of the FCC laws.

Q. Why don't they buy something else?
A. Because their is nothing else.

Please remember next year when your city wants to budget more money for replacing their wireless equipment that they have in any civic center/event center/broadcast center they have, to think back to your answers here.

My quest that I would like to ask is. What becomes of the people that actually were able to get licensing for their units? Is it now tough luck, thanks for playing?

A tremendous opportunity

[davide marney]

This is undoubtedly the right technical move. There is a huge amount of underused bandwidth in this part of the spectrum. As long as there is a reliable way to avoid the licensed operators, it would be stupid not to optimize our usage. Not optimizing our bandwidth is one of the reasons why we're slipping in broadband adoption compared to the rest of the world.

Re:A tremendous opportunity

[theaveng]

>>>There is a huge amount of underused bandwidth in this part of the spectrum.

???

Here in the crowded Northeast region, I have four empty channels. 2,3,4, and 25, and only the UHF-band 25 can be used by these compact whitespace devices. So that's ONE empty channel. I don't call that a "huge amount" in any way, shape, or form.

Re:A tremendous opportunity

[maxume]

Somewhere in the midwest, I have four channels (well, I can aim the antenna and pick up a fifth, snowy channel, but that is a decent reason not to count it in a digital context).

Re:A tremendous opportunity

[theaveng]

So what the previous poster actually meant is there is "lots of unused spectrum" if you live in the Midwest. Those of us on the crowded seaboard probably wouldn't see any benefit, since our channels are booked almost completely-solid.

Re:A tremendous opportunity

[maxume]

I don't know what the original poster meant. I would point out that the fact that these devices work best when there is a lot of unused spectrum and the fact that a lot of the people that live in areas with unused spectrum would be well served by radio broadband (mostly less capital cost for install) may be more than a happy coincidence.

That sort of broadband could be done in a licensed context though, so it isn't really a check mark on the good-things-about-unlicensed-use list.

Re:A tremendous opportunity

[IcephishCR]

It depends on location - this for the spaces between TV broadcasters - areas with lots of TV stations will have less than areas with few.

The frequency band for TV covers several frequency bands:

VHF:
-Channels 2-6
--59-88Mhz (88Mhz is where FM radio begins)
-Channels 7-13
--174Mhz to 216Mhz

UHF:
--Channels 14 - 51 (52 and above are lost to the DTV transition)
470Mhz to 698Mhz

Each TV channel occupies 6Mhz of spectrum bandwidth (Digital or Analog) minus additional channels that broadcasts use between towers and from remote trucks to studio to transmit live - lets ASSUME they take an additional 3-5 channels for each station for off-site. Each "On Location" and studio to tower link would eat these up.

Remember that studios are not often near the broadcast towers (due to the towers needing to be at high elevations) so they often broadcast the signal to the tower and it is retransmitted on the true station for service.

Even with an average 9 TV stations per area this could easily equal 36 or so channels actually setup for use.

36*6=216Mhz taken just for TV use. That is most of the ~290Mhz that is available between VHF and UHF. WHitespace devices will most likely stay in the UHF potion which trims down the spectrum to allowing just around 12mhz for a moderately populated area.

In contrast Wifi has around 84Mhz available and many tech notes suggest only running 3 "channels" (1,6,11) so that the devices will not step on each other.

5.8Ghz has 125Mhz for use and there is 26Mhz of 900Mhz that may be used. Lower frequencies allows for greater range, but you give up data rates...

If you can't tell I'm not a fan - I'm not seeing the upside to these free "whitespaces".

An Admin at a Wireless ISP

[lineman60]

I Both happy that this has happened from an technology Point view but, concerned at how this is going to effect the small WISP providers.

Re:Great! More interference

[Cylix]

The problem has always been finding affordable equipment that worked well. Sure, you can get up to the really high ranges for short range links, but that really requires an investment.

Some good stuff has come out on the unlicensed bands relatively recently. Still, too many devices feature a 12 frame or greater sync loss with audio. Which is flipping loony tunes!

Hopefully, the new equipment using these frequencies will be semi-affordable. (With time anyway)

Free wireless mesh Internet

[symbolset]

In one year. Let's call it the Cloud.

Re:Free wireless mesh Internet

[yabba-dabba-do]

Hey! You! Get offa my cloud!

Re:Free wireless mesh Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

In one year. Let's call it the Cloud.

No, no, "cloud" is this year's buzz word, we're going to need another one by next year.

How about Fog?

Re:Free wireless mesh Internet

[TranquilOne]

Can we call it the Omni-Net instead? I like that one better. On the ON.

Re:Free wireless mesh Internet

[symbolset]

I was thinking aethernet but it's a lot too close to that other ubiquitous network.

Re:Free wireless mesh Internet

[symbolset]

Actually guys, I could care less what we call it. Could we get on with building it please?

adding to the Part 15 cesspool

[dbc]

Part 15 devices already create a spectral cesspool. Between devices that are shoddily made, not made to their certifications (ie: the manufacturer certified a 'lab queen' and what they actually build doesn't meet spec), and end users adding illegal power amps and illegal antennas, Part 15 devices are already a huge headache to the licensed users with whom they share spectrum. The SNR on digital TV is already marginal enough. This could very well go badly for all concerned. Part 15 devices need to be segregated into totally unlicensed spectrum so that they don't cause interference to licensed users. Let them lie in their own dung.

Re:adding to the Part 15 cesspool

[that this is not und]

I see a growth industry:

Development and deployment of infringing devices that totally pollute the spectra, rendering all the other whitespace devices unusable. It's a 'lets all get along' area of the spectrum. None of the unlicensed devices have to not infringing on other unlicensed devices, do they? Your neighbor is jamming your over-the-air TV reception? Buy a "Widget N" from an NAB-sponsored website. It uses two AA batteries and makes your neighbors whitespace device totally unusable. All for a low price of $3. Widget N is a simple very inexpensive small black box with no controls except one button. It performs the amusing function of making a 'remote module' on your roof blink a pretty light pattern. It's a wireless holiday decoration. That's allowed, isn't it? As long as it only infringes on other whitespace devices it's okay, right?

I just cannot believe you people...

[Anonymous Coward]

in Pennsylvania voted to keep that fat, slandering, cowardly sack of shit Jack Murtha as your Senator. What the hell is wrong with you people? You really must be a bunch of dumb-ass rednecks. Too dumb to realize that your own Senator insulted you to your faces.

And Al Franken in Minnesota? Yeah, a real class act. I'm sure he'll represent you well.

Visible Light

[Tubal-Cain]

Out of curiosity, has there ever been an attempt to license in the visible portion of the spectrum?

Re:Visible Light

[madnis]

uhmmm... does this count? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/2124232

Re:Visible Light

[coolsnowmen]

No, it is not very useful because of noise of the electronics is too high to make it cost effective.

Re:Visible Light

[theleoandtherat]

Shush... FCC may try to sue God again...

Re:Visible Light

[sleeponthemic]

How can you be curious and sarcastic in the same question? ()

Re:Visible Light

[vlm]

Out of curiosity, has there ever been an attempt to license in the visible portion of the spectrum?

FCC regulation stops at 300 GHz. Ask your nearest (well informed) ham radio operator.

It is a free for all above 300 GHz.

Water adsorption is so high from 100 GHz up to light that it doesn't matter.

Re:Visible Light

[evilviper]

Water adsorption is so high from 100 GHz up to light that it doesn't matter.

Water absorbs light? Odd that.

I'm sure the reason for the lack of regulation is simply because such frequencies are so extremely directional that there's next to no possibility of even neighboring transceivers causing interference.

Re:Visible Light

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, has there ever been an attempt to license in the visible portion of the spectrum?

Yes, billboards & road-side screens.

Re:Visible Light

[Twinbee]

I think that's his sig :)

Re:Great! More interference

[Tubal-Cain]

Time to fire up my Tesla Coil!

Re:Great! More interference

[coolsnowmen]

Or my spark-gap generator

Yea! Less regulation!! That can only be good..

[mnemotronic]

Just like it was for the real estate, mortgage, and banking industry! Less pesky, intrusive government oversight. I expect big things.

Re:Great! More interference

[SleepingWaterBear]

Laws licensing airwaves are important. If they didn't exist, no one within 100' of me would ever be able to use a cell phone, because I would have a jammer.

This would make me happier since I wouldn't have to deal with people talking on cell phones in restaurants, or in theaters, and I wouldn't have to listen to obnoxious ringtones, but ultimately, I have to admit that preventing me from jamming cell phones is in society's best interest

Commie broadcasters! Serves them right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Neo-logic in action:

1. Republicans and Democrats are happy.
2. Broadcasters are unhappy.

Ergo,

Broadcasters are anti-American communists!

(Texas addendum: They're probably Muslim or Jewish, too!)

Re:Great! More interference

[KDR_11k]

And as for buying something else. Please tell me where I may buy a Sennheiser EW300G2 IEM system that is in a correct frequency band?? Thats right, they don't make any!

Well, now they have a reason to hurry up then.

Re:Great! More interference

[taucross]

haha troll will laugh last when billy goats gruff find out the grass isn't greener on the other side of FCC legislation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Great! More interference

[Stellian]

And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it ... and for free ... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well ... bone up ... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.

Not quite. Wireless mics will continue to use the spectrum illegally, and they will continue to cause whatever interference they were causing.
Whitespace devices will do spectrum sensing, they will detect wireless mics (and TV stations, and everybody else) as non-whitespace devices, and will avoid that spectrum.
During the licensing effort for WS, a great deal of focus was put on the issue of not causing interference with existing devices, be they licensed or not, and wireless mics were often mentioned.
White-space devices assume all used spectrum is used legally, so they are far from being on equal footing with the mics.

Re:Great! More interference

[Dan541]

Here in Australia we have a UHF CB radio band (as well as the American 27meg AM). This band is unregulated, there are a few rules such as 5watts being the maximum allowed output but apart from that it is entirly self regulating.

Being in the UHF band means there are ALLOT of handhelds in operation, in the city allot of nightclubs use the CB band for their staff communications and most of the time their is no problem because most people are willing to share the band.

Thats what it ultimately comes down to, sure there will be ass holes on the spectrum but most users will be reasonable and willing to share.

Re:Great! More interference

[theaveng]

>>>What happened that makes you wish harm on complete strangers that likely had no idea that their devices were problematic?

He's a member of the Entitlement Generation.
They hate everyone who dares tell them "no".
In this case, he hates those who say "no" to WSDs

Re:Great! More interference

[theaveng]

>>>they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place

True for the wireless microphone users, but not true for the TV broadcasters. There are over 5000 local stations and/or repeaters spread over this continent, and they have all bought-and-paid-for exclusive use of 1 channel per station. I think those local owners have a right to be angry the FCC decided to make their expensive licenses essentially worthless.

I'm sure the owners of expensive antennas are none too pleased either, since they will be losing approximately half their channels (the long-distance ones from neighboring cities).

Re:Great! More interference

[RMH101]

My 2.4GHz phone *does* interfere with my wifi, you insensitive clod!

Re:Yea! Less regulation!! That can only be good..

[swillden]

Just like it was for the real estate, mortgage, and banking industry! Less pesky, intrusive government oversight. I expect big things.

The problem with the finance industry wasn't lack of government oversight, it was ineffective government oversight.

In an unregulated environment, investors would have been more cautious and would have done more due diligence on the nature of the mortgages their securities backed. In a well-regulated environment, regulators would have done the due diligence and made sure that the risks were appropriately communicated to investors. Investors believed regulators had their back, but were wrong, and that screwed us.

Of course, the government proceeded to finish the job by showing the financial industry that as long as you screw up really BIG, the taxpayers will bail you out.

Re:Great! More interference

[GooberToo]

I'm fairly sure if you file a complaint with the FCC, and you are a licence holder, they will attempt to located the interference, fine the persons, and confiscate the offending equipment. And I believe a small number of complaints by non-licenced consumers of these air waves are also able to file complaints and receive action from the FCC.

Part of the FCC's charter is to protect the airwaves. They understand if a spectrum becomes diluted, it is not serving the spectrum holders or the public at large.

I know many unlicensed operators have been shut down by HAMs filing interference complaints with the FCC. Why would any other spectrum be any different?

Re:Great! More interference

[plover]

The ones truly getting the shaft in all this are the TV broadcasters. It was always their band, so companies like Sennheiser made the gear for them to use in their own space. Nothing wrong with that. But everyone else went and bought that gear without the right to operate it, and now they feel entitled. And it's not currently made in other frequencies because Sennheiser built it only for their primary customers -- the already licensed users of the spectrum.

They've manufactured perfectly legal equipment for a licensed band, and a bunch of unlicensed users bought it and used it. That hardly makes it legal. So the non-legal users can start licensing some of the commercial UHF frequencies, just like everybody else who needs the exclusive use of RF for some business purpose. And it's going to cost them, and people are going to whine, and all because they suddenly have to pay their fair share. Don't worry if the gear's not there today, because if there's a dollar to be made selling it someone will start making it tomorrow.

Churches and cities can keep using their old, now-legal gear, and now it's official. But they're taking chances with shared spectrum just like anyone else. My city probably won't have the budget for replacement microphones and licensed spectrum, but that doesn't mean their current gear stops working: they just have to hope that some guy with a Fisher-Price baby monitor or a laptop won't start abusing it. But professional entertainers such as singers and NFL commentators will most likely step up and license a frequency because they can't afford to take the chance of some drunk interrupting a live performance with a baby monitor.

Re:Great! More interference

[Lodragandraoidh]

Correct me if I am wrong, but with the advent of digital TV, the public broadcasters won't use all of the spectrum -- hence the term 'white space'.

This is no different than CB radio spectrum - that is largely unregulated (everyone can broadcast on it).

That being said, this white space will not impact your TV reception.

Finally, this largely is an issue for rural areas -- most urban areas are wired with cable TV or satellite TV anyway. As a result, the odds of a rural person's TV reception being impacted by a whitespace device are minimal due to: a) lack of proximity to other people, and b) the fact that whitespace is seperate from digital TV space.

Re:Great! More interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remember next year when your city wants to budget more money for replacing their wireless equipment that they have in any civic center/event center/broadcast center they have, to think back to your answers here.

Actually, you missed part of this issue. The problem was the mobile licenses were limited to the media. Fixed licenses have been available for event centers and such.

That's underused *after* the DTV Transisition...

[davide marney]

See Measuring TV 'White Space' Available for Unlicensed Wireless Broadband. Dense urban markets like Boston will have ~30% underused, medium markets like Portland will have ~60%, and rural markets like Fargo will have ~80%.

Re:Great! More interference

[jdmetz]

Cell phones, wi-fi, and cordless phones all work because they are heavily regulated. They follow FCC regulations about broadcast power, interference, etc. If the radio spectrum were completely unregulated, Sprint could try to snatch AT&T's customers by setting up huge jamming stations in major cities. The broadcaster with the most power would win.

Can we put something like skype on this spectrum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we put something like skype on this spectrum?

I'd like to see users untethered from these mobile phone companies that demand a voice plan and data plan if you want to use a smartphone like the iphone or Google (tmobile). Why can't we just pay for a data plan and use a skype type service (obviously Iskoot does not fit this need)?

Interested...

Re:That's underused *after* the DTV Transisition..

[theaveng]

>>>Dense urban markets like Boston will have ~30% underused

Bull. I just used tvfool.com to check the Boston area (which also includes reception from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Western Mass, and part of New Hampshire). There's 2 open UHF channels that can be safely used by whitespace devices without interfering with the existing TV stations. That's only 5% free. You need to stop blindly listening to biased reports, and do the research yourself.

(The reason I excluded VHF is because VHF requires huge antennas, completely unsuitable for a portable gadget.)

Re:Great! More interference

[guardian-ct]

A few years ago the FAA sent investigators out to a haunted house in Austin. They wanted to know what that immobile, occasionally flickering, bright spot on the radar screen was.

Last year we notified the airport beforehand.

Eight foot tall tesla coils can cause interference, yes indeed.

Re:Great! More interference

[chaboud]

True for most wireless microphone users, you mean.

There are available licenses, and they have been applied-for (and granted) to a number of individuals and production groups. Wait until a Superbowl interview goes something like "zzzzzzzzzzzzz bdkk fdd d chatta-chatta bzzzzzz." This is a simple case of the FCC being for sale, and the only real question here has been whether Kevin Martin is going to Google or Microsoft after this. Given what he looks like, I'd wager on Microsoft.

These devices screw up OTA TV, wireless mics, and, shockingly, cable TV.

Kevin Martin is a Bush-appointed political hack. I thought that Slashdot leaned decidedly against corrupt government acts like this. Anyone who isn't pro-corruption but still applauds this decision is just an idiot.

Monopolies can alter prices as they like

[Nerdposeur]

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. If it's the latter, then a new startup company can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.

It's both. Every business seeks to maximize profits. A monopoly can set high prices and rake in the profits. If a competitor comes along with lower prices, the monopoly can use their scale and their deep pockets to undercut the price, even take a loss on sales, until the competitor goes out of business.

Once the competitor is gone, the price goes back up, and so do profits.

When one company (or cartel) exerts sole control over the price and quality of a product, that's never good for the consumer.

Re:Monopolies can alter prices as they like

[Twinbee]

Can you give a couple of famous examples of companies where that's happened?

Re:Monopolies can alter prices as they like

[Nerdposeur]

How about the oil cartels? They deliberately lower their production in order to raise prices.

So who's gonna sell devices for this spectrum?

[veranikon]

I read on Ars Technica that Google, Dell, Intel, and Microsoft submitted a proof-of-concept prototype to the FCC for testing. Now that this (de)regulation has been approved, any thoughts on who will be the first to roll out White Space devices.

The NAB only has problems

[DigitalReverend]

If Domino doesn't replicate properly.

Re:Great! More interference

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Thing is, you're assuming that it is a limited public resource, but the evidence is actually that if the nodes are carefully designed to minimise the amount of radio power emitted then adding more nodes actually doesn't change the bandwidth that's available to each of the users.

Re:Great! More interference

[theaveng]

Kevin Martin is a Bush-appointed political hack. I thought that Slashdot leaned decidedly against corrupt government acts like this.

Yeah it's a bit odd, but not too surprising. Most people support large government acts if they can personally gain from the act.

In this case, most slashdotters don't care about wireless television; only wireless internet. If the government decides to effectively-end wireless television to make room for wireless internet-capable Ipods, then so be it. The slashdotters will happily fall into line with the Bush administration's heavy-handed government, because even though other people are getting screwed, the slashdotters are gaining.

Re:Great! More interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a singer have to get a license once or for every venue they perform in?