FCC To Test Opening White Spaces Up To Public

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC To Test Opening White Spaces Up To Public

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 14, 2011 @08:08AM from the space-rush dept.

GovTechGuy writes "The FCC will begin a test on Monday that will give the public access to 'white spaces,' the unused spectrum between TV and radio stations. The Commission is in the process of opening up the airwaves for public use; the last release of unlicensed airwaves eventually spawned a number of innovations such as WiFi, cordless phones and baby monitors. Officials hope this move will lead to better WiFi technology that can cover up to 50 miles."

43 of 68 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First Post by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2011-09-14 08:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

from my un-hackable 50mi wi-fi connection
Clarification by Saishuuheiki · 2011-09-14 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I think summary need to be clarified.
The FCC is beginning a test Monday that will give public access to a database to be used to identify frequency bands available. This database will be used to determine what frequencies are available when the 'white spaces' go public.
1. Re:Clarification by geekmux · 2011-09-14 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think summary need to be clarified.
  The FCC is beginning a test Monday that will give public access to a database to be used to identify frequency bands available. This database will be used to determine what frequencies are available when the 'white spaces' go public.
  Ah, this does nothing but ask for even more clarification, as it would suggest that the FCC currently does not know exactly how the public would react to having access to this database? What is this, VC fishing from the FCC or something? C'mon, like we don't know what's going to happen when you offer up frequency bandwidth for public consumption? Please. I guarantee you the Ciscos, Microsofts, and Googles of the world have an answer...or probably 4,723 of them.
2. Re:Clarification by chrismcb · 2011-09-14 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, this does nothing but ask for even more clarification, as it would suggest that the FCC currently does not know exactly how the public would react to having access to this database?
  If you need more clarification, you could, you know, RTFA!
  Here, let me help you:
  
  But the FCC's rules require that device-makers contact a database system to obtain a list of channels that aren't currently being used by radio services at their current locations to prevent possible interference with broadcasts.
3. Re:Clarification by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-15 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  C'mon, like we don't know what's going to happen when you offer up frequency bandwidth for public consumption? Please. I guarantee you the Ciscos, Microsofts, and Googles of the world have an answer...or probably 4,723 of them.
  You better cool your guns if you don't want to get downmodded around here - you're implying that the government's artificial restriction on frequency use has prevented the kind of economic development activity you're talking about, and that just can't be happening in our environment. It's good for a handful of 'overrated's around here - rarely a substantive reply, though.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Clarification by camperslo · 2011-09-18 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think summary need to be clarified.
  The FCC is beginning a test Monday that will give public access to a database to be used to identify frequency bands available. This database will be used to determine what frequencies are available when the 'white spaces' go public.
  It's a public test of the database system which white-space equipment must use to determine what channels (current but locally available tv channels, not the former ones above 51, or frequencies between tv/radio channels) are available for use without causing problems.
  It's a bit strange that viewing the maps requires Silverlight. Something new shouldn't be using dying tech.
  trial site:
  http://whitespaces.spectrumbridge.com/Trial.aspx
  The F.C.C. blog posting:
  http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fcc-announces-public-testing-first-television-white-spaces-database
Second Post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-14 08:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Second post. From your hackable 50mi wi-fi connection.
1. Re:Second Post by davester666 · 2011-09-14 15:20 · Score: 2
  
  WouId have had 3rd post, but everybody within 50 miles seems to be using this 'unhackable' connection... It's taken forever to post this.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
50km? by bsharp8256 · 2011-09-14 08:16 · Score: 1

I'd love to be able to reach my home connection from that distance, but do we really want 10,000 "linksys" APs showing up when doing a scan?
1. Re:50km? by Dunbal · 2011-09-14 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Oh god yes!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:50km? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-09-14 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  I'd love to be able to reach my home connection from that distance, but do we really want 10,000 "linksys" APs showing up when doing a scan?
  The article is talking about something more like wimax rather than personal access points.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:50km? by Omniscient+Lurker · 2011-09-14 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  If you get a way to search through the ssids, yes. Think of the free internet possibilities. No longer does there need to be one technologically challenged person on your street, no you just need one in the city.
  Joking obviously. Don't steal wifi; it messes up the owner's ability to stream porn.
4. Re:50km? by Short+Circuit · 2011-09-14 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  but do we really want 10,000 "linksys" APs showing up when doing a scan?
  It'll provide more input for wireless-survey-driven location detection logic.
  
  --
  tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
5. Re:50km? by i_ate_god · 2011-09-14 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  do we care?
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
6. Re:50km? by medv4380 · 2011-09-14 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, but wouldn't you want to try and negotiate a clean channel with 10,000 other people rather then just have a few wimax points. Just think of the current issues with just 14 channels using wifi depending on regulations. 10,000 people setting up their AP to the same factory default settings sounds like fun.
7. Re:50km? by Vegemeister · 2011-09-14 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone running a WAN that covers 50mi should be fined for abuse of radio spectrum if they don't broadcast the SSID.
8. Re:50km? by mspohr · 2011-09-14 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I've stayed in hotels with WiFi where they put all of their stations on the same channel. I guess they didn't want to interfere with outside channels... just interfere with their own customers.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
9. Re:50km? by Omniscient+Lurker · 2011-09-14 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you are limiting the owner's bandwidth it is stealing. The "stealing" analogy only applies to everything beyond to router. Which if the owner pays by the (giga)byte does remove resources he paid for.
10. Re:50km? by batquux · 2011-09-14 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  But just because you can do 50mi doesn't mean you have to. Reduce the power and get 2 mile wifi...now that's handy.
11. Re:50km? by Dunbal · 2011-09-14 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Where you see pollution I see opportunity! A veritable Las Vegas Strip of interconnected, interlaced access points, all communicating with the net and also with themselves... Once again we will have free speech because no one will be able to monitor all that obfuscation - at least for a while.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:50km? by pearl298 · 2011-09-14 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  All you are doing with 5Ghz is adding a few channels!
  
  2.4Ghz has only 11 overlapping channels in th e US - that is where the problem lies.
  
  Hopefully a WAN implementation will define 10K channels and all will be well for a few months ... :-(
  
  Personally I like the idea of infra red lasers - NO license, VERY directional and HUGE bandwidth!
  
  Oh yes and a 50 mi+ range in Ham competition tests
13. Re:50km? by Vegeta99 · 2011-09-14 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  So basically, what you're telling me is that if my neighbor is blasting music at my property day in and day out, it's not cool to go ask the DJ to play a different song if the neighbor neither notices nor seemingly cares?
14. Re:50km? by pearl298 · 2011-09-14 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  I would point out that there are far more mobile phones on these bands than routers! The difference is essentially one of proper spectrum management and number of channels available.
15. Re:50km? by shentino · 2011-09-14 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  You might have enough power to SEND out to 50 miles, but do the people connecting have enough power to REPLY?
  You need signals going BOTH directions to have a network. Otherwise it's just a broadcast.
16. Re:50km? by Omniscient+Lurker · 2011-09-15 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  That analogy makes no sense.
How Racist by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-14 08:19 · Score: 1

only access to 'white spaces'?
1. Re:How Racist by Trepidity · 2011-09-14 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  actually the opposite---the FCC is considering allowing more color into the heretofore reserved 'white spaces'
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Mesh networks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-14 08:26 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if this would allow citizens to build a national network the could compete with the Internet?
ham radios rejoice! by X0563511 · 2011-09-14 08:29 · Score: 1

a number of innovations such as WiFi, cordless phones and baby monitors.
Gee, thanks for that. Those things tend to be the scourge of the airwaves.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
1. Re:ham radios rejoice! by X0563511 · 2011-09-14 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  Yea, if only it was that easy. You have to try and resolve it yourself... and good luck dealing with the soccer moms. You might have the law on your side, but it takes a long time to go about it that way.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:ham radios rejoice! by X0563511 · 2011-09-14 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  Eh? What are you on about? Go read the link. Family buys cheap baby monitor that spews all over the spectrum. HAM tries to help. Soccer mom freaks out (even to the point of trying to file a criminal complaint). Typical story, from what I understand.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
OTA TV reception impact? by GrumpyOldMan · 2011-09-14 09:05 · Score: 2

I'm a cord-cutter & I'm worried about the impact this will have on my free TV reception.
My understanding is that these devices are supposed to phone home, and find an "unused" UHF TV channel, so that they don't interfere with local TV broadcasts. But what is the definition of "unused" ? Will I still be able to pick up TV stations from 60 miles away, or will they be drowned out by the neighbors wireless gadgets? How about low-power (college / community) stations?
And then there are hacked gadgets (like people do now to enable wifi channel 14) and broken gadgets to worry about.
1. Re:OTA TV reception impact? by geekmux · 2011-09-14 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a cord-cutter & I'm worried about the impact this will have on my free TV reception.
  My understanding is that these devices are supposed to phone home, and find an "unused" UHF TV channel, so that they don't interfere with local TV broadcasts. But what is the definition of "unused" ? Will I still be able to pick up TV stations from 60 miles away, or will they be drowned out by the neighbors wireless gadgets? How about low-power (college / community) stations?
  And then there are hacked gadgets (like people do now to enable wifi channel 14) and broken gadgets to worry about.
  You bring some sound points here. Perhaps it is too much of a risk to interfere with data streams(digital TV) that are dependent on good signal quality.
  Or perhaps this is all part of Obamas big job push. Let people interfere with public broadcasting so they can justify another Department of Homeland Obscurity and a 150,000-man FCC goon squad that will run around the country with scanners to fine/arrest violators.
What about all those WiFi-headache wingnuts? by turkeyfeathers · 2011-09-14 09:16 · Score: 1

There will be nowhere for them to escape to now.
i wished they would upgrade the specs of GMRS/FRS by FudRucker · 2011-09-14 09:16 · Score: 1

i would like to buy a 5 watt mobile UHF radio and a 5 watt UHF base station and both can use external antennas of my choice so i can RX/TX a few miles out on them.

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Say goodbye to wireless microphones by rwhealey · 2011-09-14 09:29 · Score: 1

Most wireless microphones operate in the "white space" frequency ranges. The FCC pushed wireless users out of the 698-806 MHz a couple years ago and caused havoc in the theater and concert industries - the small theater I worked for spent over thirty thousand dollars replacing their wireless mics, because it is now illegal to buy, sell, or use a 700 MHz microphone. I can't imagine what it will be like if they take away all the spectrum. It's hard enough as is to do frequency coordination for twenty or thirty mics that are used in larger productions. More info here: http://www.shure.com/americas/news-events/spectrum-issues/white-spaces/index.htm
Re:Oh great... by sjames · 2011-09-14 09:56 · Score: 1

Even better, it is currently just one big png image. I thought the last web designer that thought that was OK was beaten to death with a wet squirrel back in '99. We can only hope that's just a stand-in until the trial starts, but given that they made it dependent on silverlight, I'm not betting on it..
I guess the FCC only wants to hear from people who give their money to three time losers.
Re:i wished they would upgrade the specs of GMRS/F by Obfuscant · 2011-09-14 09:57 · Score: 1

i would like to buy a 5 watt mobile UHF radio and a 5 watt UHF base station and both can use external antennas of my choice so i can RX/TX a few miles out on them.
Would you like 40 or 50 watts? That's a typical ham mobile power in the UHF band. Get thyself a ham license and have at it.
Oh, you want to talk commercial topics? Pssst, most, if not all, and at least many, UHF ham radios can be "opened up" and will cover the GMRS/FRS frequencies. Remove a jumper/0 ohm SMD resistor and bingo. Go to mods.dk for info. Don't tell the FCC.
Re:i wished they would upgrade the specs of GMRS/F by Achra · 2011-09-14 11:03 · Score: 1

i would like to buy a 5 watt mobile UHF radio and a 5 watt UHF base station and both can use external antennas of my choice so i can RX/TX a few miles out on them.
GMRS licensees are already authorized to transmit up to 50w and to have detachable antennas and there are repeaters as well. Ta-da! Your wish has been granted!

--
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
Re:4 meters by GaryOlson · 2011-09-14 12:02 · Score: 1

I think your allocation request is biologically impossible. And, Europeans tend to exaggerate.

--
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Re:Moonloght by pearl298 · 2011-09-14 15:47 · Score: 2

let me shed some moonlight on the subject
The site is set up so moonlight does not work, ONLY Genuine "Silverlight"!!
Re:Whitespace? by shentino · 2011-09-14 22:35 · Score: 1

Considering how our rights are being eroded left and right I would call the GOVERNMENT the terrorist.
Roof top routers by bobs666 · 2011-09-15 08:13 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if this would allow citizens to build a national network the could compete with the Internet?

Not the Internet, Not say cross country. But perhaps we can by pass the local cell(phone) towers. What we want are many ISP's that can provide competition for access to the the Internet. The goal being that we pay a fare price for good service, and not just pad the pockets of the monopolies. And not the 388kbit DSL that most of us get when we do not live packed in like Sardines. and Yes I live only two miles from a brick and mortar Version switch building.

Roof top routers should allow phones to work over much greater ranges as the data hops from roof to roof. well over 100 miles. with no paying for Air time. Or texting fee. Voice takes a tiny 56kbs. compared to WiFi as 54,000kbs. You are not going to find the bandwidth for down loading movies. Thats another story, all about NetIntegrity.

On the down side, I thing this is designed to fail.

The dead space in the TV bands are Best used out in Farm country. Where the next house is a mile or more away. In urban communities we should be using higher frequencies closer to the WiFi ranges but with less power restrictions. The lack of bandwidth in this test is just going to end up in a 'I told you so' ending to the test.

We also need a commitment to the right frequencies so that manufactures will produce the appropriate hardware. Without the hardware this will fail.

The FCC needs to recall bandwidth for this. It is not the FCC's bandwidth to give away like candy.