Slashdot Mirror


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."

16 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? by Tx · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.)

  2. Can I watch these new applications on TV . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  3. Re:Capitalism, ho! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.....

  4. Frequency ranges??? by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:Frequency ranges??? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  5. Re:Capitalism, ho! by shentino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a lot like the IPv4 address space.

  6. Re:Can I watch these new applications on TV . . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Re:It's not the last by the+coose · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:It's not the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:It's not the last by morethanapapercert · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  10. I just wish I could watch TV on it by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. TFS, it sucks by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  12. Re:Capitalism, ho! by Biogenesis · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Why white spaces in the TV bands? by storkus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).