Slashdot Mirror
FCC Unanimously Approves White Space Wi-Fi
Smelly Jeffrey writes "With the release of this whitepaper, the FCC unanimously approved plans for a new technology with strong supporters and even stronger detractors. White Space Wi-Fi effectively allows manufacturers of wireless devices to incorporate transceivers that operate on unused DTV channels. Although the deregulation is new, the idea seems to have caught Google's interest recently as well. It seems that this has been rather rushed through the normally stagnant channels at the FCC. While some view it as interference in the already crowded spectrum, it seems the FCC Chairman really likes the idea of re-purposing dark parts of the newly allocated DTV bands once more." Update: 11/06 18:15 GMT by T : You may want to look at Tuesday's mention of the decision as well, but the additional links here are interesting.
They'll deregulate use of the spectrum, but if you say "blow job" on television, they'll fine you into oblivion. Sounds like they've got their priorities straight.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
The explanation I read sounded like this could be a good thing but whenever I see something like this come sailing through an approval process, I always have to wonder whose money greased the skids. The worse it is for the public, the quicker they push things through so nobody gets a chance to notice.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This was posted to the front page just a day ago: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/05/0016251
Even just from the URL, that's a press release from 2007 and has nothing to do with this whitespace issue.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Existing Wifi uses channels open for use internationally (more or less). It sounds to me that this might not be true in this case. That is one reason for alarm.
I was watching the behind the scenes of "Family Guy" and they were talking about making up swear words. Seth said that when a made up swear word that was OK to say on TV becomes part of the language, the FCC will then consider it off-limits to say on TV.
People can be so weird about words.
Then you have the cry babies who have to bitch to the FCC over every little thing. But if you actually mention that there's an off switch, somehow, you're the moron.
Somehow, I see this as a stepping stone to more de-regulation and "stepping on of toes" for other, perhaps more (I hesitate to use the word) 'important' areas of the frequency bands; example being Fire Department, Ambulance Service, Air Ambulances (helicopters), Police, etc. Data telemetry used to send real-time digital information by the various emergency responders also notwithstanding. I do wish to balance my comment with the fact that I am an amateur radio enthusiast, and what the FCC did to allocate digital transmissions in Alaska using the amateur spectrum for commercial use (subsequently blocked by the ARRL and concerned amateur operators). I have a feeling that there are going to be some real problems, not only with manufacturers of sub-standard devices trying to 'cash in' during the rush for market presence, but further deregulation and posturing by regulatory groups forcing the already narrow allocations even further. When you have someone driving FCC that is unaware of how little room there is now, will there be any left when it's all over?
Don't spend your life lamenting your life.
How much bandwidth was in this spectrum?
By opening up this spectrum, the FCC has given Obama a gift. The Obama technology plan talks about the need to "deploy next-generation broadband" among other things, but with a weakening economy he's going to find a lot less money to back such initiatives. Thankfully, with a simple restructuring of the rules, the FCC has created space for new innovation that might prove easier to fund than laying cables throughout the country. Not that I don't want more cables. I love cables.
Government censorship of broadcast was a scary and unAmerican experiment justified by judicious use of scarce frequency space. Technology has removed that scarcity and the censorship can no longer be justified.
This is checkmate for traditional broadcast and telco by Google, M$ and other tech companies. Watch for all manner of new cellphones and free internet to flow from this decision. When those companies die, the rest of the spectrum will be liberated too.
Yes, M$ should be mentioned here. Given the federally approved success of their Slog against Yahoo, we should know who really carries influence in Washington. The result, this time, is good as long as everyone gets fair access to these newly unlicensed frequencies.
M$, because life is too short to type icrosoft frequently.
I think it is good for everyone if unused parts of the spectrum are utilized.
But my goodness... what is the rush that it could not wait a few more months while they tweaked the prototypes so they did not stomp on weak TV signals or wireless mics?
A few more months devoted to getting a succesful trial is nothing.
I know the general feeling of /.'s are very pleased at these results. Just remember this the next time you are watching TV and the reporter's wireless microphone drops out, or you are at a concert and the singer goes silent.
How is a whitespace device supposed to hear a 50-100milliwatt transmitter from 1/2 miles away?
It could be transmitting a few watts and is desensing the wirelesss microphone's front end or overpowering the channel.
Sure the Pro Audio industry will need to make some changes to adapt, but users such as singers and corporate CEOs tend to get awful angry when their mic doesn't work...
I suppose Lectrosonics will get some additional business as they have a slick frequency hopping TX/RX pair that will help some - but there will still be some dropouts.
Life is but a Beta test...
Finally!
Rural areas with rolling hills and trees have really limited options with regard to high-speed Internet access. Line of sight just wasn't one of nature's design goals. It's really difficult to have a cottage high-tech industry without the infrastructure to support it and the population density simply isn't there for the telcos to have any incentive to build it out.
Your best bet is Wildblue with 750-1500ms latency and 256kbps upload speed. You get used to it but forget sharing say a vmware image or uploading anything of substantial size. If you spend the time to do it, you also face rate-limiting from WildBlue once you pass a bandwidth threshold. Let us not forget wiping the snow off the dish, throwing a trash bag over the lnb when it rains, and wiggling the dish when you lose signal.
Sure, rural users can try to order a T1 but since the wired infrastructure isn't built out (else the telco would be offering high-speed services), you can bet on "special construction charges" of at least $4k on top of the $500/month service charge. ISDN? Same issue.
What about getting a ham radio license? That's fine and all, provided you don't ever use encryption, don't mind people intercepting your data, and remember to identify your station periodically.
The truth is that more than half of the country simply cannot acquire high-speed Internet access for a reasonable rate.
It contains the letter that Google wrote to the FCC chairman in favor of passing the recently approved regulations.
They want to deregulate. Which means there will be no one authority to control these whitespaces. I don't think I need to explain what happens to an unmanaged network resource with multiple authorities competing; Multiple DHCP or domain controllers, etc.
And no matter how you cut the bandwidth, there will be overhead, which increases as a function of the number of devices. While these devices may be logically separated, they are not physically separated, making the entire spectrum act like a hub-based network. And devices outside the range of other transcievers can still cause interference so long as the the device at the remote can hear that interference.
So let me say that this is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. This is a tragedy of the commons problem. And it will be hugely exasperated in dense urban areas -- except on a larger footprint. Whereas before geographies with high densities of wifi devices could only interfere with each other up to a hundred meters or so, now we're talking about metro-wide interference. It'll be like CB radio, but for digital communication. And it will never compete with hardline installations like it could if it were regulated.
This is the simple truth -- unless the FCC puts some form of regulation onto these bands prior to their first use, it's going to be a nightmare. It would be far better to license these bands for **non-profit use** (note I did NOT say non-commercial) somewhat like Ham radio, where people needed to aquire a license to transmit, and take classes, and have an ID associated with transmissions, and a regulatory body to monitor specious transmissions and revoke licenses or shut down non-compliant equipment as necessary. This plan stands the best chance of achiving a usable public, wireless, high speed network... which incidentally could carry internet traffic. Anything less, and all it takes is a few jerks with high power transmitters in an area to render the entire spectrum useless.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
FCC Approves Unlicensed Use of White-Space Spectrum
I'll try this one more time:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1018545&cid=25635983
This (wide open white space) is not a terribly good thing at this time, they're not prepared.
For those of you that have an understanding:
It's an intrusion thing.
~hylas
This is actually a very important point. The wireless mic crowd has been a big opposition to the deregulation of these airwaves. The problem is they don't have a leg to stand on and the parent mentions why.
These mic manufacturers are using a low power transmitter on licensed bands illegally and just hoping they will do ok. The thing is, the theatre companies and others using these devices are risking fines for the illegal use of this spectrum, because you are supposed to license a frequency if you intend to use it. If they get interference from a licensed transmitter, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Now that the airwaves are going unlicensed (Like the ISM band we all love so much) they STILL don't have a leg to stand on. That they have been illegally using frequencies without an FCC license is no argument to prevent the FCC doing ANYTHING with this spectrum.
If a large number of companies had went through the proper channels and gotten licenses on these frequencies, the vote may have gone another way.
As it is...suck it up buttercup.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
It seems that some people are assuming the broadcasters have issues with the wireless mics being interfered with. The broadcasters have rights to enough spectrum that they can find new areas to operate wireless mics. (It is the guys who just lost the investment)
The broadcasters are more concerned with these devices affecting TV signals in fringe areas. While these devices are low power, they will totally overwhelm a weak TV signal if they are close to a reciever.
(And we have not proved these devices will not cause intermodulation issues.)
I've been trying to find the actual frequencies which will be made available with no luck.
Anyone have a link ?
Absolute statements are never true
Since the devices are specifically designed NOT to do that and the only studies that say they will are the ones published by the companies fighting tooth and nail to kill this dead, I'd say you are talking FUD. It might be well meaning FUD, but its FUD all the same.
Think about it, your TV is getting a strong enough digital signal that you aren't getting macro blocking routinely already, and yet this signal is suppose to be weak enough that the whitespace device can't see it?
Even if the TV is between the tower and the device, if the device is near enough to interfere with reception it's probably near enough to pick up SOME signal, even if it's not a signal strong enough to play.
And if we are talking about a long range signal from the device, the specs have already covered encoding your device so it knows what channels are suppose to be in use in the area and therefore will avoid them regardless of detection.
1)The Bluetooth class 1 range is 100 METRES not 100 feet, so roughly 3x what you state.
That may be the "on-paper" specs, but in actual practice, BT devices you can actually buy on the market today do good to make it up to 100 feet useful range, and most fizzle out after about 45 feet.
I have young children
I'm fascinated by your accomplishments and want to subscribe to your newsletter. Mine always fall apart at the joint welds.
Did this start happening last time you visited? If so, try reprogramming the first channel to something other than playboy. ;)
Your woman can be happy?? Am I doing it wrong?
If Bill Gates/Microsoft and Google really pushed for this then you KNOW it is for the good of the people and not some attempt at corporate financial padding.
Those are a software and a services company. They're not hardware companies or ISPs. The ISPs and the people who own the wires have the most to lose here, because if you can get a mesh router with 100mbps bandwidth and a 2 mile range, the last mile problem goes away in a big way. That's why they opposed it with a battalion of lobbyists and lawyers. An intermediate business would be to "anchor" the mesh at favorable locations in exchange for advertising rights or something. Hardware companies that are positioned to sell into this market stand to gain a lot -- a whitespace mesh router is also a repeater in addition to giving you a net connection to the "anchor". There's no "selling" to this product. It's the big "duh".
And a wireless mesh network with this kind of range and multiple anchors isn't as susceptible to power outages, filtering or government monitoring. This could get interesting very quickly. Buildout to low density or impoverished areas could accelerate immensely. The OLPC project has a good mesh stack. Call quality with voip would be abysmal probably, but whitespace mesh cellular could become interesting also if QOS is built into the mesh. Linksys and DLink should have these products available within a year - the radio space is unregulated and they already have the router side figured out, so it's a frequency change a little testing and off to the factory in TaiPei. They don't even have to worry about interop. This is undiscovered country and real pioneers are seldom fussy about standards - they're more interested in staking a claim and holding it. The guy with the most swag in the interop standards conference will be the guy with the most stakes planted in the field.
This is nothing but money for companies that sell services and software because it grows the size of their potential market. Imagine being able to get online anyplace you currently do, with 1mbps wireless bandwidth, for the one-time cost of a "whitespace mesh router" and having to click through an anchor ad to get to the 'net - just like you would do if you were at a hotel. Just the consumer data on the unencrypted traffic might be marketable enough to pay for it without ads. A lot of people will use this who currently just can't.
It's innovatin' time! Let's get to it!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As you already know, broadcasters don't care about unlicenced mics.
What I want to address is your constant claim that being unlicenced means illegal.
I've done some more research, and this is NOT the case. Unlicenced is just unlicenced.
Use of this space is just like my use of FRS radio's, unlicenced but permitted.
The latest ruling from the FCC acknowldges this as well. If you doubt me please read he FCC ruling on 11/4/2008 named "Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3
GHz Band, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order".
I don't think there's anything gained if they continue to do it like before, selling licenses or giving them for free to companies. I think there is a lot more potential for this.
I would use it as a meshed network, free to use by everybody who wishes to, owned by it's users.
Essentially you would have to do the following:
1. Develop a fault-tolerant meshed routing protocol maybe based on IPv6 which can scale efficiently to a billion nodes. Current systems like OLSR are limited to a few thousand nodes. Maybe you need something based on geography.
2. Sell the needed routers at stores. The hardware should come down in price quickly and there probably still is quite some profit to be made. Allow device manufacturers to include the router into their products. Keep the router design as free as possible.
3. Allow companies to sponsor the network by putting such devices onto their roofs or providing links. There are a lot of companies interrested in more people getting faster and cheaper internet connectivity.
Of course such a network would be completely insecure, but that is already the case with the Internet. So just encrypt and sign everything you transmit over that network and you'll be fine.
in biology they call it form meets function. The EMT spectrum is fundamentally a tool for broadcast, doing point-to-point communication over it is inefficient and stupid, although with the great wealth of the spectrum i certainly to not think it shouldnt be used. Broadcasting on the EMT brings much more to many more people, its what the spectrum is good for and should be protected. Yes, i definately think the digital thing is god and innefficent analog should be completely phased out for every device, but digital devices are much more prone to interfance and should not be tampered with.
Google s full of shit and the FCC is being bough out giving (not selling) another group's alloted spectrum share with no real controls in place. All band need to be alloted by licence and location. Google has allready helped spread spam into every corner of the internet, while claiming no foul, dont clam out broadcasters too.
Let's assume that an Ipod or Ipod-like device gains the ability to broadcast wireless internet over the television bands. There are a number of things that could go wrong (from worst to best case):
- Person hacks their Ipod to use any damn channel they please, thereby blocking my local weather/news channel WGAL8 because they are broadcasting directly overtop of it.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but Ipod database does not list nearby cities stations like WBAL11 (Baltimore) or WPHL17 (Philadelphia). As a result of this oversight I lose channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,29,35,57,65 because the Ipod is broadcasting directly overtop of them.
- Person uses Ipod normally, and Ipod decides to broadcast on channel 7, directly adjacent to WGAL8. The "spillover" from channel 7 confuses my television receiver and I can't tune-in my local weather/news. I see a picture, but it's heavily-pixelated due to interference.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but the cable connector hanging out of the wall picks-up the Ipod's broadcast, and several channels became "staticy" or "pixelated" as a result of the interference on the line.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.