Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First White Spaces AP Gives Grandma the Internet

Posted by timothy on from the new-health-hazard-to-panic-about dept.

alphadogg writes "A Houston restaurant worker is the first user of a prototype wireless access point using low-frequency signals in the so-called White Spaces between unused UHF digital TV signals. The access point was set up in the home of a grandmother and homeowner who had never had a reliable Internet connection before the White Spaces spectrum created one. Widely but wrongly dubbed 'Super Wi-Fi,' these lower frequencies can reach further and penetrate buildings more easily than standard Wi-Fi radios, which implement the IEEE 802.11 specification."

27 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. White Spaces AP by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    I took White Spaces AP in high school. It saved me a lot of time in college!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  2. White Spaces? by m1xram · · Score: 1

    Is this some kind of racist WiFi?

    1. Re:White Spaces? by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      nah, the drivers can only coded in whitespace. I'm looking forward for color spaces APs!

    2. Re:White Spaces? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes! Even more racist than the master and slave IDE terminology! And if you disagree, that means YOU'RE racist!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. Speed, anyone? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    Interesting tech. Would be nice to see it employed more.

    But nothing in the article about transmission speeds.

    Or potential distance covered, and interference with other white space devices.

    1. Re:Speed, anyone? by m1xram · · Score: 1

      Follow the links. First one takes you to the real article. In the real article there is something like "What the heck is Super WiFi?" on the left about a paragraph down. It's lower frequency than WiFi so expect less throughput bandwidth unless the spec allows more than one channel at a time.

    2. Re:Speed, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wikipedia says speeds would be in the 80 to 800 Mb range. I suppose then that the actual speeds for a typical user would be in the 8 to 80 Mbit range.

      In other words it would be fast enough for standard definition video and often fast enough for HD video.

  4. WUT?? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unreadable most ever headline.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:WUT?? by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Maybe she redeemed her "one free internet" coupon

  5. Already use CB Radio Wi-Fi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Have a Station that I created myself using CB Radio as a half-duplex physical layer for low-rate TCP/IP communications by modulating through my Soundcard, getting reliably around 500 Baud 3 miles range with 2-watts: it's enough to send fax-like messages like what NOAA Wether stations do on storm alerts.

    Working on migrating to RS232C to use a simply timer circuit and make it audible with a little peizo-electric speaker setup, to free-up my Soundcard.

    Anyone remember Wavewhore that would use an actual ISA-bus TV card to modulate across the same frequencies of Television to get internet access directly from the root Station allocations? Too bad we're all paying for it now.

    1. Re:Already use CB Radio Wi-Fi. by Duradin · · Score: 1

      If you're in the US and in an area where Uncle Charlie keeps a close watch on things you may want to rethink using a CB radio, data transmissions aren't legal. HAMs can do packet radio iirc, but not CB.

  6. Reach further and penetrate more by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    That's some damn good marketing.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  7. specs? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I can't find anything in any of those links that describes technical details of Whitespace wifi? Max bandwidth? Positives/Negatives? The Wiki article talks about a suit filed by broadcasters against the FCC for licensing this tech, as they assert devices in these frequencies cause interference, but says a result was expected Feb 2011...with no update.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:specs? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I can't find anything in any of those links that describes technical details of Whitespace wifi? Max bandwidth? Positives/Negatives? The Wiki article talks about a suit filed by broadcasters against the FCC for licensing this tech, as they assert devices in these frequencies cause interference, but says a result was expected Feb 2011...with no update.

      "White Space" is about using the unused broadcast TV bands that (may) exist - if you look at the bandplan, a wide swatch of bandwidth is reserved for broadcast (OTA) TV. In many places, much of that band is empty (but in crowded urban areas, there is also a chance there is no space available).

      The problem is that these devices need to know what frequencies are in use so they don't interfere with existing licensees' traffic (i.e., TV stations). The problem is, short of a comprehensive site survey, it's very difficult. If you're in a valley deploying these devices, someone on the hill could get interfered with if your device picks a frequency that's in use (as it can't pick up the signal the person on the hill can).

      Many solutions have been proposed, besides a reception test - including a geolocated database where a white space device would use its built-in GPS to determite its location, then use a database to query what frequences are clear. The problem is, of course, how to query such a database with no connection (any built in one will be obsolete quite rapidly).

      Google is a big proponent and has offered to host such a database.

  8. Low Frequency??? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2

    UHF => Ultra High Frequency. Yet, somehow the spaces between are channels are "low frequency". Perhaps they mean low bandwidth, as each unused channel in only about 6MHz. Alternately, this could just be a redefinition of what "High Frequency" is.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Low Frequency??? by mortonda · · Score: 1

      I believe UHF was named back in the FM days when they didn't have modern 2.4 Ghz type transmitters...

    2. Re:Low Frequency??? by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

      Earlier than that, actually, but not really the point. The nomenclature is standardized, and "low frequency" refers to frequencies four orders of magnitude lower than UHF. It would, however, be correct to say lower frequency. Technically, WiFi is UHF, also, as UHF is from 300 MHz to 3.0 GHz.

      (Yes, I know, 802.11a, at 5.8GHz, is not UHF, but SHF. Most WiFi is 802.11b/g/n, so that's what I'm using as a baseline)

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    3. Re:Low Frequency??? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Low frequency as compared to 2.4/5 GHz used with WiFi. "Lower" would have been more appropriate, though, I guess.

    4. Re:Low Frequency??? by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      The nomenclature is standardized, and "low frequency" refers to frequencies four orders of magnitude lower than UHF

      True, but then it would be Low Frequency; the caps denoting a proper label and not a relative term

  9. Re:News From the Future by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

    "... Smith at the time thought he was advancing technology when volunteering for the device. Unfortunately the manufacturer didn't do enough radiation analysis and didn't realize that the device created frequencies that caused her to fart uncontrollably and induced Irritable Bowell Syndrome as well.."

    Not to mention the Spontaneous Hermaphrodism Syndrome.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  10. alphadogg -- A question for you! by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1

    The poster copied something from the article: "using low-frequency signals."

    What does this mean? We are talking about UHF here, so they obviously aren't low-frequency signals. Do you mean low-bandwidth or low-amplitude signals? Slashdot is "News for Nerds," and such details truly do matter for those of us who are actually nerds and are trying to learn or understand something from the postings here. :\

    1. Re:alphadogg -- A question for you! by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      It's low frequency when compared to 2.4/5 GHz used in 802.11 now. I think thats what they mean.

    2. Re:alphadogg -- A question for you! by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Technically, conventional wireless is also in the UHF range, so it makes proper sense to say that these new-application frequencies are lower (which they are). On a side note, some applications of the conventional wireless are in the SHF range, which is higher-frequency than UHF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#By_frequency

  11. Re:News From the Future by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    LOL, oops "In other news, this reporter has been fired for not checking his personal pronouns."

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  12. Re:The Author is Misinformed by robot256 · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry, but we use X-rays for medical scans precisely because they penetrate WORSE than lower frequencies--otherwise they would go straight through the body tissues and we would not see anything! Not to mention that longer wavelengths would produce lower-resolution images.

    It's a well-known fact that the attenuation of electromagnetic waves is a direct function of the size of the obstacle relative to the wavelength of the energy (d/lambda). This is why lower frequencies (with longer wavelengths) travel farther with the same amount of output power.

  13. Re:The Author is Misinformed by damnfuct · · Score: 1
    Even if did interact noticeably, the wavelength of UHF is in the metre range whereas x-rays are around 1 nm.

    Patient: "well doctor, what's the result of the radio image?"
    Doctor: "This blobby thing here is your body"
    Patient: "... and?"
    Doctor: "That's all"

  14. Re:The Author is Misinformed by robot256 · · Score: 1

    LOL! You made my day.