Slashdot Log In
FCC Approves Unlicensed Use of White-Space Spectrum
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 04, 2008 08:20 PM
from the knights-in-white-spaces dept.
from the knights-in-white-spaces dept.
sidesh0w was one of a number of readers to alert us to the FCC's unanimous decision approving unlicensed devices to use the white spaces of the spectrum unused by television broadcasters, provided they take certain precautions not to interfere with licensed users. "Denying a tremendous last-minute lobbying effort by broadcasters, the vote on white space devices went ahead as planned today after a several-hour delay at FCC headquarters. When the vote came, though, it was unanimous. For the Democrats on the Commission, the devices are appealing because they offer a potential new avenue for broadband services, while the Republicans are pleased for the same reasons, but love the fact that this is a deregulatory order that focuses on less regulation and more competition."
Related Stories
[+]
FCC Unanimously Approves White Space Wi-Fi 156 comments
Smelly Jeffrey writes "With the release of this whitepaper, the FCC unanimously approved plans for a new technology with strong supporters and even stronger detractors. White Space Wi-Fi effectively allows manufacturers of wireless devices to incorporate transceivers that operate on unused DTV channels. Although the deregulation is new, the idea seems to have caught Google's interest recently as well. It seems that this has been rather rushed through the normally stagnant channels at the FCC. While some view it as interference in the already crowded spectrum, it seems the FCC Chairman really likes the idea of re-purposing dark parts of the newly allocated DTV bands once more." Update: 11/06 18:15 GMT by T : You may want to look at Tuesday's mention of the decision as well, but the additional links here are interesting.
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Internet Hardware For White-Space Spectrum? 36 comments
g2 in the desert writes "I live in a small rural community in the US Southwest, where broadband service varies from decent but very expensive, to lousy but less expensive. Now that the Federal Communications Commission has approved the use of the soon to be vacated White-Space Spectrum, I'm interested in helping the community build its own local Internet service, providing villagers another choice. Does anyone know what companies will be manufacturing hardware that will be required to utilize this spectrum, and what steps need to be taken in order to be in compliance with any FCC rules and regulations?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wait. (Score:3, Funny)
Please don't confuse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did somebody just describe God's Own Crony Capitalists(tm) as loving competition?
Please don't confuse the Neocon faction currently in control of the Republican party electoral machinery (and most of the (R) seats in the congress) with conservatives. B-)
Republicans in appointed and bureaucratic positions are more likely to be from the other factions - some of which give more than lip service to economic freedom (which emphatically includes competition and excludes government action selectively helping favorites).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please don't confuse ... (Score:5, Funny)
I keep getting a mental image of McCain on election night, looking broken, then walking off stage, shutting himself alone in a room, and out comes an enormous creepy grin. He immediately picks up a phone, dials a number, and says, "Hello, Karl? Yeah, how do you like your permanent majority now? Payback's a biatch, fat boy," then hangs up.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Please do explain to us the market forces that lead to a reigning monopoly that has already extended its reach across several industries ceding power to the up and coming soon-to-be competitors that it could otherwise crush without any trouble at all by using the tried and true anti-competitive tactics that we've all become far too familiar with. And explain why it would be in the best int
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your clue for the night: "everything deregulated" would mean no copyrights. Copyrights are a form of regulation. So how does Microsoft maintain their monopoly?
'Everything' is an expensive term to use, needless to say.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I'll ever understand the thinking behind that notion.
The way I see it, the most perfect free market that ever has or ever can exist is that embodied in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens in the physical universe that doesn't involve an exchange of energy. There is no regulation. There are no free lunches. Everyone pays the going rate. And yet, the physical universe brings forth singularities.
And if, in the one system we know that is fundamentally beyond regulation, a single
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that Adam Smith, the founder of capitalist theory says you're wrong, right? Complete deregulation always leads to a one provider monopoly over absolutely all goods and services. There isn't any other possibility, eventually one business gains enough resources to start merging and ultimately wins out over all the other companies.
There's a reason why regulations exist and it is precisely to prevent that sort of scenario from playing out. The Republican party chooses to be ignorant of capitalism
What about the Ghosts? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, expect a lot more of that sort of trouble. (Score:3, Funny)
You know the ghost that uses the white space to communicate on the tv and recorders? Won't they get pissed now that thier channels are getting clogged?
Sure.
Remember what they already did to that little kid [tvsquad.com] in _Poltergeist_? We can expect a LOT more of that.
THEY WILL REGRET THIS! (Score:3, Funny)
Between WhiteSpace and 700Mhz, (Score:5, Interesting)
Now hold on a minute! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously don't know what to think now.
Let the lawsuits begin.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let the lawsuits begin.... (Score:5, Funny)
"The National Australia Bank has no comment on this issue."
The plot thickens.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It gets worse, I hear Switzerland is neutral on the issue!
A tremendous opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
This is undoubtedly the right technical move. There is a huge amount of underused bandwidth in this part of the spectrum. As long as there is a reliable way to avoid the licensed operators, it would be stupid not to optimize our usage. Not optimizing our bandwidth is one of the reasons why we're slipping in broadband adoption compared to the rest of the world.
That's underused *after* the DTV Transisition... (Score:3, Informative)
See Measuring TV 'White Space' Available for Unlicensed Wireless Broadband [newamerica.net]. Dense urban markets like Boston will have ~30% underused, medium markets like Portland will have ~60%, and rural markets like Fargo will have ~80%.
Free wireless mesh Internet (Score:2)
adding to the Part 15 cesspool (Score:2)
Part 15 devices already create a spectral cesspool. Between devices that are shoddily made, not made to their certifications (ie: the manufacturer certified a 'lab queen' and what they actually build doesn't meet spec), and end users adding illegal power amps and illegal antennas, Part 15 devices are already a huge headache to the licensed users with whom they share spectrum. The SNR on digital TV is already marginal enough. This could very well go badly for all concerned. Part 15 devices need to be seg
Visible Light (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not very useful because of noise of the electronics is too high to make it cost effective.
Yea! Less regulation!! That can only be good.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait to have my cordless phone screw up my TV signal! Wee!
Your new phone won't interfere with your TV, as your TV does not use this spectrum. Your new phone will only interfere with other devices currently using this band. It's no different than your 2.4GHz phone interfering with your WiFi today.
The reason this is such a "fun" decision is that a large number of wireless microphones (used by entertainers, churches, actors in theatres, musicians, etc.) have been illegally occupying this spectrum for many years. That's right, they've been squatting spectrum that they should not have been using, and when this announcement came out all these "performers" started whining that they'd have to buy something else.
I think this is the ideal punishment for those lawbreakers: too freakin' bad, you should have been purchasing and licensing COMPLIANT equipment all along, morons! Now you get to pay for it twice! It makes me happy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that was an incredibly bitter and spiteful comment.
What happened that makes you wish harm on complete strangers that likely had no idea that their devices were problematic?
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have ever had to deal with RF interference as a primary duty for your job, you'd feel even more hostile than the previous poster.
Parent
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Insightful)
Harm? I'm not wishing harm on them nearly as much as I'm cheering the equality that's being forced upon them. If they want interference-free equipment, they'll now have to license it just like everyone else.
I have ALWAYS paid for my FCC licenses because the law says I'm supposed to. They didn't, and never have.
I might have had one ounce of sympathy if they didn't rise up as a group crying when someone else wanted to share their sandbox. But no, they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place, and now the FCC has said "it's a public sandbox and everyone else gets to play there too."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>they've been using something for free that was not lawfully theirs to use in the first place
True for the wireless microphone users, but not true for the TV broadcasters. There are over 5000 local stations and/or repeaters spread over this continent, and they have all bought-and-paid-for exclusive use of 1 channel per station. I think those local owners have a right to be angry the FCC decided to make their expensive licenses essentially worthless.
I'm sure the owners of expensive antennas are n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!
The whole concept of licensing airwaves is loopy to begin with. Who "owns" the airwaves ? Not the US Gov't nor the FCC. I respect the need for some regulation, mainly to ensure operability, but that's roughly where my concern ends.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, so the only people who own the airwaves are those who can shout over all the others.
Might makes right, motherfuckers!
Re:Great! More interference (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Or my spark-gap generator
Re:Great! More interference (Score:4, Insightful)
"Has your life been negatively impacted by these "illegal" wireless microphones ? No ? Then STFU!"
Actually yes, yes it has. Multiple times.
And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it ... and for free ... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well ... bone up ... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.
And you're sitting there going off about how no one "owns" the airwaves? That sounds like the position of someone in favor of deregulation. Guess what this judgement just did for those frequencies? That's right. Deregulated them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And opening this spectrum doesn't stop the existing non-broadcast users from utilizing it ... and for free ... it just allows everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, wait, now other devices are going to stomp on those frequencies? Well ... bone up ... because those microphones have been doing it others for awhile.
Not quite. Wireless mics will continue to use the spectrum illegally, and they will continue to cause whatever interference they were causing.
Whitespace devices will do spectrum sensing, they will detect wireless mics (and TV stations, and everybody else) as non-whitespace devices, and will avoid that spectrum.
During the licensing effort for WS, a great deal of focus was put on the issue of not causing interference with existing devices, be they licensed or not, and wireless mics were often mentioned.
White-
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Insightful)
Why yes, my life has indeed been negatively impacted. I've been paying the FCC for licenses to use a tiny portion of the spectrum. And I've been supporting more than my fair share because these scofflaws have not been paying at all.
Without the revenue from the licenses, we would have no regulatory body, and without rules we simply would not have any working RF devices at all. A few giant broadcasters would be pumping megawatts into a handful of megastations, and we'd probably be getting nothing but crappy AM radio leaking interference into every electronic device in existence. Nobody would be responsible for ensuring their signals are of high quality and don't leak. Tiny signals would be drowned out. Cell phones would be impossible, as would any of the GPRS / 3G / EDGE type networking solutions. The fact that the FCC has provided this badly needed regulation says to me that they're an effective body (despite Pacifica and the censorship issues.)
And the licenses pay for it all. My license and my dollars have paid for my small portion of it. Their money has not. It's time for them to pick up the slack since they're reaping the benefit.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine what would happen if a ton of different, say, "devices" used the same range of frequency for day-to-day communication. It'd be a nightmare; they wouldn't be able to communicate at all.
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Insightful)
the radio spectrum is a limited public resource. it's something that is incredibly useful (and increasingly vital) but has to be shared by everyone. therefore, in order to prevent the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org], it has to be regulated.
and really, the best way to regulate it is through licensing. though how it is licensed could probably use some improvement. and if you are against licensing airwaves, then why are you complaining about the FCC's approval of the unlicensed use of the white-space spectrum?
the people who bitch about how this will affect their TV reception or wireless microphones are basically claiming this entire unlicensed block for themselves and are trying to prevent the development of wireless technologies that are much more broadly useful to the general public. why should they alone be allowed to benefit from this shared public resource? why should their private interests be placed above public interest?
wireless microphones and wireless broadband are not mutually exclusive. but that requires that people be considerate when developing their wireless technologies and implementing wireless applications in the white-space spectrum. i mean, when you use an unlicensed spectrum you should naturally expect to have other devices residing on the same frequencies. that's why it's an unlicensed spectrum.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Australia we have a UHF CB radio band (as well as the American 27meg AM). This band is unregulated, there are a few rules such as 5watts being the maximum allowed output but apart from that it is entirly self regulating.
Being in the UHF band means there are ALLOT of handhelds in operation, in the city allot of nightclubs use the CB band for their staff communications and most of the time their is no problem because most people are willing to share the band.
Thats what it ultimately comes down to, sur
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws licensing airwaves are important. If they didn't exist, no one within 100' of me would ever be able to use a cell phone, because I would have a jammer.
This would make me happier since I wouldn't have to deal with people talking on cell phones in restaurants, or in theaters, and I wouldn't have to listen to obnoxious ringtones, but ultimately, I have to admit that preventing me from jamming cell phones is in society's best interest
Re:Great! More interference (Score:4, Informative)
Do you do any research into this subject?
Musician's and production company's have not been ABLE to buy the correct licensing to run the microphones in the first place!
In order to get the permit you have to be a licensed broadcaster or broadcast media creator. Then you can get a permit.
So in a sense the musician's and company's that use these pieces of equipment aren't even able to get the correct licensing by law because of the law.
And as for buying something else. Please tell me where I may buy a Sennheiser EW300G2 IEM system that is in a correct frequency band?? Thats right, they don't make any!
So lets see if I have all your arguments here.
Q. They don't have the licensing
A. They can't get the licensing because of the FCC laws.
Q. Why don't they buy something else?
A. Because their is nothing else.
Please remember next year when your city wants to budget more money for replacing their wireless equipment that they have in any civic center/event center/broadcast center they have, to think back to your answers here.
My quest that I would like to ask is. What becomes of the people that actually were able to get licensing for their units? Is it now tough luck, thanks for playing?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great! More interference (Score:5, Informative)
The ones truly getting the shaft in all this are the TV broadcasters. It was always their band, so companies like Sennheiser made the gear for them to use in their own space. Nothing wrong with that. But everyone else went and bought that gear without the right to operate it, and now they feel entitled. And it's not currently made in other frequencies because Sennheiser built it only for their primary customers -- the already licensed users of the spectrum.
They've manufactured perfectly legal equipment for a licensed band, and a bunch of unlicensed users bought it and used it. That hardly makes it legal. So the non-legal users can start licensing some of the commercial UHF frequencies, just like everybody else who needs the exclusive use of RF for some business purpose. And it's going to cost them, and people are going to whine, and all because they suddenly have to pay their fair share. Don't worry if the gear's not there today, because if there's a dollar to be made selling it someone will start making it tomorrow.
Churches and cities can keep using their old, now-legal gear, and now it's official. But they're taking chances with shared spectrum just like anyone else. My city probably won't have the budget for replacement microphones and licensed spectrum, but that doesn't mean their current gear stops working: they just have to hope that some guy with a Fisher-Price baby monitor or a laptop won't start abusing it. But professional entertainers such as singers and NFL commentators will most likely step up and license a frequency because they can't afford to take the chance of some drunk interrupting a live performance with a baby monitor.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The problem has always been finding affordable equipment that worked well. Sure, you can get up to the really high ranges for short range links, but that really requires an investment.
Some good stuff has come out on the unlicensed bands relatively recently. Still, too many devices feature a 12 frame or greater sync loss with audio. Which is flipping loony tunes!
Hopefully, the new equipment using these frequencies will be semi-affordable. (With time anyway)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices. most-likely these protocols will be designed to detect whether a particular band or frequency is occupied by another device and try to find one that isn't. they'll probably also be designed to jump to a different band/frequency if a new source of interferen
Re: (Score:2)
i'm assuming that wireless protocols used in the white-space spectrum (i think WiMax has an unlicensed spectrum profile, though i don't know what frequency range it's in) will account for potential interference and frequency conflicts from other devices.
I would extend the question further: what happens in a competitive environment where:
- providers compete among each other to serve as much customers as possible over whitespace ?
- customers compete among each other to maximize their own download speed ?
I realize the devices are themselves approved by FCC, but what happens when you can improve the quality of service by hacking the firmware ? How many people will refuse to install the "double your bandwidth" hacked firmware, that just so happens to disable an
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, most certainly. I simply can't imagine a more rabidly politically correct bunch than Slashdotters.