Television White Space Spectrum Approved For Use By FCC

New submitter ptmartin01 writes "The unused spectrum now assigned to television broadcast has been made available for public use by the FCC. This is going to be used for wireless applications (PDF) with implications that it will generate as much investment as the previous Wi-Fi spectrum. It also happens to be the last available spectrum to be exploited."

Comments

So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use?

[rsmith-mac]

Hopefully someone can clear this up for me.

Throughout the development of the "white space" spectrum, one thing that has never been clear to me is what it's going to be used for. It keeps getting compared to Wi-Fi, but then you'll have articles like this one that talk about commercial uses.

The launch of commercial white spaces services marks a victory for big technology companies

So which is it? Am I going to be able to drop a router in my house and run my wireless LAN on different frequencies, or is this just going to be another segment of licensed spectrum for selling wireless broadband?

Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use?

[Tx]

I was wondering the same thing. I guess if there was a "killer app" for white space spectrum, we'd have heard about it. This page summarises it so; "Unlicensed spectrum opens the door to all kinds of uses, but the use most commonly talked about is to provide fixed and wireless broadband Internet services. It could also prove a good technology for moving video and other bulky data types around the home."

Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use?

[Trip Ericson]

When spectrum is unlicensed, it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial uses. My ISP operates its end-user links on 900 MHz unlicensed spectrum, but its backhauls are on highly-directional 2.4 GHz unlicensed links. That, of course, does not mean that 2.4 GHz cannot also be used for wifi in the home, or that 900 MHz cannot also be used for cordless phones. (In fact, I had to replace one of my cordless phones when I got my Internet connection because the two would interfere badly. If the phone was on the exact same frequency as the Internet, it'd knock the Internet out, but if it was merely adjacent, I would hear modem sounds on the phone.)

Re:That's funny

[LucidBeast]

There is a lot of whitespace activity in Europe. Here is one summary.

Can I watch these new applications on TV . . . ?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

So what if I haul that old, dusty analog TV out of the attic, switch it on and tune it to one of these new applications? What will I see? Strange, weird pulsating patterns? Or garbled snow and fuzzy sounds?

Will I be able to tell the difference between that mess, and usual broadcast television content?

Maybe the old TV can be used as a Lava Lamp effect light? It would be interesting to see how the television circuitry tries to interpret these new application coded signals as television signals.

Probably like something SETI is trying to do.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[Dolphinzilla]

it's also a little bit of BS - there is a tremendous amount of spectrum, not only is there spectrum that is inefficiently used there is also spectrum that is just beginning to become useable due to advances in technology. I hardly believe that white space TV spectrum is the last bastion of wireless communications.....

Frequency ranges???

[Mononoke]

I'm certain someone knows exactly what frequency ranges are being discussed, but apparently no one (including the FCC) really want to make that information available. "White spaces" is a marketing term that doesn't inform.

Re:Frequency ranges???

[betterunixthanunix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Band_Devices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_%28radio%29#FCC_decision

It's not the last

[Garybaldy]

The FCC could try to take away some of the amateur radio spectrum. Every now again they try to take some away. In so far they have not been successful. It is only a matter of time though. What with the number of new hams decreasing every year.

Re:It's not the last

[the coose]

Actually, see here. Also, amateur radio bands exist in almost all parts of the spectrum from HF up to UHF but taken collectively it doesn't amount to much when compared to the whole spectrum.

Re:It's not the last

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC could try to take away some of the amateur radio spectrum. Every now again they try to take some away. In so far they have not been successful. It is only a matter of time though. What with the number of new hams decreasing every year.

You might want to check your facts. The number of licensees in the U.S. is actually at an all-time high. It's been climbing since 2007, when the FCC dropped an outdated Morse Code proficiency requirement. See graphs and some additional stats for the details.

Re:It's not the last

[morethanapapercert]

You. Should. Bemoreunderstanding. Shatner Syndrome is a...crippling disease.

Re:It's not the last

[sjames]

Nah, the real fear is that we might create a cell network with free texting, no dropped calls, operated at cost in the public interest and leave DHS and the major carriers high and dry.

Re:It's not the last

[Ol Olsoc]

The FCC could try to take away some of the amateur radio spectrum. Every now again they try to take some away. In so far they have not been successful. It is only a matter of time though. What with the number of new hams decreasing every year.

Second thing first. There are not less and less Hams every year.

There isn't all that much spectrum to take away form Hams. And much of it is completely useless for digital work anyhow. The LF and HF bands in various neighborhoods from 1.8 to 30 MHz are prone to atmospheric static, and propagation effects that will occasionally cause microwatt signals to propagate around the world. And varying based on time of day or year. Then there are solar events that simply kill the bands. An 11 year sunspot cycle changes the band conditions too. Just won't work. Do some searching on Broadband over Power Line - or BPL. It interferes with signals at those frequencies, and can be totally knocked out by small transmitters.

We'll be wanting frequencies that are both line of sight around 100 MHz and above, and not prone to propagation. So we're then talking about UHF and up.

But even then we have to be careful, because of an effect called intermodulation. This is when two signals heterodyne together, and produce a third signal. This is not uncommon at antenna sites where all manner of stray signals are produced that are not intentional.

Anyhow, the one thing that Politicians and lawyers and F.C.C. policy wonks - and apparently a lot of digital engineers - don't understand is that the concept of "efficient spectrum use" will make spectrum useless as the various signals mix together and interfere with each other.

There is also the Shannon-Hartly Theorem, which deals with the maximum data rate that can be transmitted over a particular bandwidth at a particular frequency. In general it tells us that the max data rate at a given frequency is enforced by the combination of the bandwidth of the signal, which tends to increase with frequency, and the signal to noise ratio.

There is a way in principle to get around this - sorta. By using certain modulation techniques, such as shifting phase of the signals, you can get around the limit. Say if you split the signals into quadrature phasing, you can transmit x times more than the SH limit would seem to allow. Increasing the number of phase increments - limited only by the ability to differentiate on the receiving end. In principle this allows for infinte bandwidth. Unfortunately SH isn't really violated, and the transmitting power levels needed rapidly become infinite. The only practical future for these systems is to have informed people start to come up with what needs to be where. We need to get as much as possible onto fiber and off the air. We may also need to do some serious frequency shifting if we want to continue to grow the smartphone market. Get their frequencies high as possible. This will naturally tend to make the useable distances shorter - which sounds bad, but actually allows (makes a demand for) for more local towers that will get the signals onto fiber all that much more quickly.

Re:It's not the last

[Ol Olsoc]

rounding error.

Reading the numbers of operators is a pretty inexact task to be sure. But hardly rounding error level.

At this point, there are around 700K amateur Radio operators. Since we've had the ULS system, the number has dipped as low as 655K.

The number of licensees varies by month to month, as inactive or dead hams are removed from the rolls. The license period is for ten years, so that inactive hams will be removed after 2 years after expiration. That 2 year grace period is a courtesy in case the Ham is actually active or wants to become active again and had simply forgot to renew.

To compound the uncertainty, there is no way of telling whether or not any licensee is active.

But what is important to take away from the statistics is the trend, upward or downward.

To have an idea of what the numbers mean in some sort of context, during a previous era of expansion, there were many licensees who we refer to as "Honeydew Hams", they got their licenses - usually the Technician version, before cell phones were widespread. They would use repeaters and phone patches to call home to see if they needed to do anything like stop at the store - hence the "honeydew this, honeydew that" moniker.

After cell phones became more common, they became inactive, and many did not renew their licenses. That was a wave of dropoffs.

Then, there was the Morse code testing issue. Once upon a time, that was pretty important.But as time went on, some serious problems became apparent with that system. With modern computer based modes, low power tiny bandwidth modes became useable by anyone who had a license and a computer. The computer can now even do Morse code. In addition to the technical advances, there was another, less pleasant issue. Many of Amateur radio's older adherents and some of the newer ones, were proud of their ability to send and recieve Morse code, and they weren't terribly welcoming to newcomers, in fact many made it a point to try to scare new Hams away. I'd experienced this nastyness myself, as a so-called "Nickle Ham", only capable of slower Morse code operation because I am deaf.

But eventually, commons sense prevailed, and Morse code operation became just another mode, and not tested for license grant. And at this moment, there are about 50 K more Hams than there were a few years ago

We have actually expanded our spectrum a bit recently. But as I noted before, it is in areas where Computer or smartphone transmission and reception wouldn't be practical.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[shentino]

It's a lot like the IPv4 address space.

Re:Can I watch these new applications on TV . . .

[PopeRatzo]

So what if I haul that old, dusty analog TV out of the attic, switch it on and tune it to one of these new applications? What will I see?

I Love Lucy.

Re:Can I watch these new applications on TV . . .

[Megane]

Probably nothing. If you tune that analog TV to a digital channel, you see nothing but snow, just like a channel with nothing on it. That's because an efficient use of the channel would look as random as the data in a zip file.

This is a godsend

[MetricT]

My parents live a mile off the main road at the bottom of a valley. No DSL, cable, 3g/4g, satellite, but with the help of a big honking antenna and a couple of amplifiers, they can pick up solid TV signals.

I'm salivating at the prospect of getting two of these radios and trying to set up a point-to-point bridge between their house and mine. The 145-225 MHz band out to be a lot more amenable to line-of-sight obstacles than 2.4 GHz.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[spire3661]

You do realize that wireless does alot more then get pictures to grandma's computer, right? Its nice to have a wireless LAN technology that can at least keep up with 10/100 Ethernet.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[transporter_ii]

Then use existing tech. 99% of the people only use wireless for surfing the net. Do you not see how much spectrum is doing nothing but giving people less non-overlapping channels?

It's all fine and dandy when you live in the sticks. Go to an apartment and set up a router. Oh, there is nobody on channel one, and everyone else is on 6 and 11...but it seems a couple of idiots set their equipment to channel 3, which interferes with 1 & 6. Who the hell thought that one up. Let's let them think they were getting 11 channels, but only 3 are non-overlapping. Oh, and then let's give them a super turbo mode that uses up half the wifi band!

Try setting up wifi for a hotel with 3 channels and not getting self interference. Try operating a WISP and use 2.4. Wow, you get 3 channels to work with. You can use equipment that has 5 Mhz channels, but you shoot over Grandma's house, who's grandson got her a really fast N router to get her email and do facebook with.

Really, a person would think in America, we could do better, but hey, it is easier to sell wireless equipment when you can advertise it gets 300 Mbps. Now that's capitalism.

I just wish I could watch TV on it

[Osgeld]

This DTV shit is for the birds, even with an external antenna and an amplifier the best I can get is 2 seconds of video with unsynced sound before the garbage freezes up for 15 seconds. Thanks Bush, sunk a hundred bucks into your bullshit little boxes and ended up getting fucking cable anyway so I can watch the god damned local news.

Re:I just wish I could watch TV on it

[osu-neko]

blah blah blah

You forgot to add, "Get off my lawn!"

where are the unused channels located

[Daa]

I just looked in the Denver Area using the Spaectrum Bridge system, there is 1 white space frequency available for use, all the others are already blocked by existing TV usage. that single 6Mhz slot means that at least in the denver city area trying to make use of "White Space" for networking is basically useless. I would like to see a map of the US with the number of channels available per 10 sq. miles plotted across the country. I'm guessing that there will be lots of bandwidth available where there are low population densities and little bandwidth available where most of the population is located. .

TFS, it sucks

[fyngyrz]

The unused spectrum now assigned to television broadcast has been made available for public use by the FCC.

No. It hasn't. It's been made available for commercial use, following the long standing tradition at the FCC of giving the public nothing or next to nothing, and corporations everything.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[Biogenesis]

I don't have the FCC's spectrum allocation chart handy, but here's the one for Australia: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/spectrum_plan/arsp-wc.pdf

The only unallocated spectrum is below 9kHz and above 275GHz. Obviously a lot of overlap can occur at VHF and above (if you allow for the odd tropospheric ducting event to cause interference) but TV is the last of the big chunks of spectrum, everything on the chart that isn't broadcasting (orange/red colour) is hacked up into small pieces.

Why white spaces in the TV bands?

[storkus]

For the same reason they keep trying to steal the amateur 70cm band (420-450 MHz in the New World, 420-440 MHz elsewhere): the propagation happens to lie in a "sweet spot" of being able to penetrate vegetation, buildings, etc with minimal loss, high power can be generated rather cheaply and easily, and yet there sufficient bandwidth to be able to do high speed data and what-not.

Further up into the microwaves (including mid and high-UHF) you get more bandwidth but attenuation and lower power generation (necessitating directional antennas for most apps) become problematic: witness the differences between the original 800/900 MHz cell bands and the PCS bands at 1700-2100 MHz.

Further down you start needing big antennas to do anything and man-made interference (static and such) starts becoming a real issue. Also, while VHF TV exists where it does for historical reasons, available bandwidth starts getting real scarce as you go down here. Finally, in the low VHF band (FM radio and below) you start seeing ionospheric propagation crop up which can be a nightmare for commercial uses (we hams love it, of course) and will probably be even worse for unlicensed users who will probably be stuck with lower power levels.

My guess is that the interference/big antenna issue will make low VHF (channels 2-6) useless in cities while in rural areas its use will be determined by available channels (a lot of translators are still on VHF even now). Possibly ditto for high VHF (7-13), especially in the number of channels still in use. ATSC has always done better on UHF so in cities where there are a zillion transmitters (half of them low power religious and the like), I can easily see the lack of white spaces being a big problem. In rural areas, the propagation isn't as good on this band, but still far better than 900 MHz+, so we'll see what happens.

One other question I haven't seen answered anywhere: what about Canada and Mexico? If the USA doesn't have some agreement with them on this (and I have yet to see one) none of this may be available in border regions (similar to the Line A and B issues on the 70cm UHF ham band along the US/Canadian border).

Re:Can I watch these new applications on TV . . .

[ogdenk]

I think the tin whiskers issues are a little overblown.... power supply issues and occasional dead caps can be a problem. Every antique piece of electronics I've resuscitated usually had power supply issues or blown caps near the power supply.... or unseated chips.

Some things surprise you though.... my old Atari 400 fires right up.

Opening up a CRT is only dangerous if you are careless. If you discharge the tube properly, the danger is minimal or non-existent. CRT repair used to be expected of techs. My money is on the DC power supply failing in your TV. Probably not worth repairing unless it was a really cool TV. I still repair CRT VGA monitors if they are really nice and the repair isn't very expensive. Solder and caps are cheap. I replaced a couple caps in my big Sony Wega HD CRT TV. Why? Because I can watch newer HD content AND my wife can play super mario brothers without it looking like badly upscaled garbage.

For a run-of-the-mill TV, I may not bother. If there was something special about it I might have a go at it. I actually find soldering and prodding at electronics relaxing. Especially old through-hole stuff.

Re:Capitalism, ho!

[transporter_ii]

OMG, eggnog must cause reading comprehension problems or something. If you read what I said, I said we need to squeeze 60 Mhz out of military spectrum and do something similar to 802.11 (wifi), only this time, do it correctly. I never once said anything about cutting off anyone's N routers (even though never pushing them to people who didn't need them would have been the correct thing to do for America).

> but I use the hell out of that 300Mbps moving large files around my home network

For every one of you, there are 9 other people who do nothing but surf the Net and cause interference with each other. I would bet good money on it.

> And if interference is that big of a deal

If you think it is not that big a deal, you should go and wire a hotel for 802.11, or you should have to go work for a WISP and work customer support. I've done both. After you do that, get back with me. I'm painfully aware of all the unlicensed spectrum issues. Satan runs a wireless network in hell, and when really bad people die, they don't just go to hell, they are in charge of maintaining the wireless network. Yeah, it's that bad.