FCC Publishes "White Spaces" Rules

Stellian writes "The Federal Communications Commission adopted a Second Report and Order that establishes rules to allow new, sophisticated wireless devices to operate in broadcast television spectrum on a secondary basis at locations where that spectrum is open. It's the first time we have access to clear specifications for these devices, dubbed TVBDs — 'TV band devices' by the FCC. The published guidelines allow manufactures to create protocols and build compatible devices, which could be available in 18 Months, according to Larry Page. The full PDF text of this Second R&O is published on the FCC site."

Comments

A growing irrelevance

[nsayer]

I know something about this. I am one of the vanishingly small number of people who have set up an ATSC transmitter other than under FCC part 70 rules.

The sad reality is that 85% of people get their TV from cable or satellite, meaning that TVBDs will have zero impact on them (the cable and satellite companies either get their feeds over fiber or will have no trouble hunting down any source of interference that keeps the head-end from getting a signal, given their budget as compared to the average homeowner).

One of the big time losers in the switch to digital broadcasting are mobile/portable receivers. I have an Insignia 7" LCD ATSC TV, and unless you plug it into a proper TV antenna mounted on top of a building, it's digital tuner is deaf as a post. Insignia stopped making them, probably because as portable devices, they're practically useless. And that's not Insignia's fault. It's simply the nature of the cliff effect. Portable receivers used to get by because they could display a less-than-perfect signal. But digital receivers get perfect reception or none at all. Mobile reception is out because the Doppler effect and dynamic multipath can totally wreck 8VSB reception.

So what's left are people either too cheap or too poor for cable or satellite, or who (like me) are RF hobbyists.

How low does that 15% figure have to go before it's simply cheaper for the government to subsidize lifeline access rates for the poor and auction the rest of the broadcast TV bands off? For how much longer is the public interest better served by broadcast TV rather than, oh I don't know, how about really, really high speed mobile IP (the sort of thing you can get when you set aside a 300 MHz band for the purpose)?

TVBDs that cause interference will be impossible for the average broadcast TV viewer to diagnose. Their receiver will simply go blue-screen. In the past, there were visual clues in the picture condition to diagnose reception problems. But with the switch to digital, it would take a spectrum analyzer to do the same job. The fact that the FCC would countenance such a situation speaks volumes about how important they perceive broadcast television to be.

Re:A growing irrelevance

[Areyoukiddingme]

The fact that the FCC would countenance such a situation speaks volumes about how important they perceive broadcast television to be.

Which is exactly how it should be. It was something like a decade ago that somebody made the sage observation that America had its data transmission systems completely upside down (for historical reasons only). The huge high bandwidth signals were over the air (broadcast TV) and the tiny low bandwidth signals (phones) were over cables. The populace has been working hard to reverse one part of that state of affairs, buying cellular phones. Shoving the television signal into a wire where it belongs is the next step.

Yes, the next thing that will happen is a Federal Universal Access Fee on cable. Because some dumbass will think it's "fair" that the cable company pass those costs on to the consumer for recovery in 30 seconds of billing, instead of acting like a utility and recovering their costs over decades. But that's another rant...

Re:A growing irrelevance

[theaveng]

Let's see. Approximately 18% or 20 million homes watch television over the air, exclusively. Some by choice, some because they are farmers living in Montana or some other rural state lacking wires, and some because they can't afford a $60 a month cable bill.

If the government discontinued broadcast television and instead subsidized Dish locals-only service to everybody, that would cost $11 a month per home. The total expenditure would be $2.7 billion per year. Are you sure we really want to spend that much money??? Over-the-air television doesn't cost the government anything (because it's already there and working).

BTW:

Cellphones suck IMHO. Yes I like the convenience; it's great to be reachable anywhere (I think?). But the cost of that convenience is around $50 a month. A wired phone only costs $10 a month, and the quality of the sound is better. Being just a poor citizen, I prefer the cheaper option.

Re:Whitespace rules?

[noidentity]

What is the FCC doing specifying how I indent my code?

Whitespace is my code, you insensitive clod!

Re:Actually worse than I expected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, Mr. Chicken Little, what will actually happen -- the TVBD will not work in your hypothetical crowded venue because there is no open spectrum for it to use.

An since when does broadcast coverage at an event use the open local terrestrial channels? Your scenario is nonsense.