Slashdot Log In
FCC Unanimously Approves White Space Wi-Fi
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:17 PM
from the think-of-the-possibilities dept.
from the think-of-the-possibilities dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
FCC Approves Unlicensed Use of White-Space Spectrum 138 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Good grief (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
I was watching the behind the scenes of "Family Guy" and they were talking about making up swear words. Seth said that when a made up swear word that was OK to say on TV becomes part of the language, the FCC will then consider it off-limits to say on TV.
People can be so weird about words.
Then you have the cry babies who have to bitch to the FCC over every little thing. But if you actually mention that there's an off switch, somehow, you're the moron.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
I have young children, and I have a simple method for determining what they see. I hold the remote, and I change the channel if something fails to meet my approval. If a show or channel repeatedly crosses a line, we just don't watch it.
This way, I can make sure my kids don't see really graphic violence, but are allowed to see healthy expressions of affection, within reason.
I even have a name for this method: parenting.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but what do you expect us lazy/stupid/uncaring people to do?
Keep breeding more little monsters.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
Reminds me of an old (yes I'm dating myself) LA Law episode that was explaining a photograph of a man and mistress in a particular sexual act.
".... a position commonly referred to as a number"
It didn't fool anyone about anything, but they were obviously censored from saying it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't fool anyone about anything, but they were obviously censored from saying it.
More likely they were censoring themselves so as not to offend their advertisers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about that. This was the show that introduced America to the "Venus Butterfly" [everything2.com]
Re:Good grief (Score:5, Funny)
Second best thing ever. Right after the Sybian. Now I don't have to kill myself trying to keep my woman happy. ;-)
Parent
How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:5, Insightful)
The explanation I read sounded like this could be a good thing but whenever I see something like this come sailing through an approval process, I always have to wonder whose money greased the skids. The worse it is for the public, the quicker they push things through so nobody gets a chance to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth could be wrong with it anyway? So you have 50MHz of spectrum doing absolutely nothing because the license owner is making out with untold millions by spoon feeding their wares over existing stations - who cares if they hold the license, if they aren't going to actually use the spectrum then it should be open for everyone. Squatting on the spectrum is just as bad as squatting domains or houses.
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:4, Informative)
"Squatting on the spectrum is just as bad as squatting domains or houses."
Actually, it's much worse. The unallocated spectrum for communications is much more limited.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How are you going to lose access to channels that will not exist in 2 1/2 months?
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:4, Interesting)
jesus christ, do you have to repeat the same specious arguments every single time the white-space spectrum is brought up? what do hacked iPods have to do with FCC approval of wi-fi over the white-space spectrum? a hacker can modify their wireless devices to broadcast over any frequency they want regardless of federal regulations. the FCC regulates commercial equipment manufacturers, not renegade iPod hackers.
besides, the white-space spectrum that is being opened up to wi-fi applications is what's being freed up by the switchover to digital television. whether wi-fi uses this spectrum or not, you're not going to receive any TV signals over it. that's why it's being classified as white-space. and you keep whining about some perceived threat all of this is based purely on blind speculation. the FCC tests have found that such use of the white-space spectrum won't interfere with any existing applications, so unless you can have evidence of the contrary, you're just talking out of your ass.
opening up white-space frequencies for wireless broadband applications serves public interest much more than reserving this band for terrestrial TV broadcasts would. the usable radio spectrum is a limited public resource that is currently being monopolized by TV/radio/cellular networks. right now only a handful of media & communications corporations are allowed to make us of this data transmission medium. opening up the spectrum, even partially, to wireless broadband would allow everyone to benefit from this shared resource instead of it just being hoarded by a rich & powerful minority.
frankly, terrestrial broadcasting, of both TV and radio, is soon to become a technological anachronism anyway. the internet is an open public communications network. what's more, it's a generalized digital communications network, meaning it can transfer video, audio, text, or any other data. so why waste radio bands on specialized closed communications networks? it won't be long before ubiquitous open wireless access subsumes all cellular/radio/tv networks.
i'm sorry to say this, but your Luddite paranoia is really just a knee-jerk reaction to societal progress. it's like complaining that wireless routers are going to interfere with your teletype machine.
Parent
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:5, Informative)
Other than that, it's a 'free for all', which should in theory allow cheaper wifi, broadband, free mobile phone calls (as they would communicate directly with each other), and healthy competition in the overall communication sector.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, just a heads-up, this means that those of you who use wireless microphones are no longer illegally transmitting on licensed channels, so even though it might cause some interference you should think of it as a good thing.
Parent makes important point! (Score:3, Informative)
This is actually a very important point. The wireless mic crowd has been a big opposition to the deregulation of these airwaves. The problem is they don't have a leg to stand on and the parent mentions why.
These mic manufacturers are using a low power transmitter on licensed bands illegally and just hoping they will do ok. The thing is, the theatre companies and others using these devices are risking fines for the illegal use of this spectrum, because you are supposed to license a frequency if you intend to
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's several hundred megahertz of open spectrum in between the TV channels. Wireless mikes have had sole use of that empty space for a long time, and they're complaining because things are changing. In some cases, they may have to buy more equipment, but the idea that they should continue to get sole use of this huge amount of spectrum is ridiculous.
What's needed is a way for wireless mics and the new whitespace devices to properly share the spectrum. The reason this is difficult is that wireless mics are manufactured many different ways, and don't have a standard transmission pattern. The "cognitive radios" will be able to detect digital TV stations automatically, but won't be able to sense the presence of wireless mics. So one possible solution is for wireless microphones to have an extra box that transmits a beacon that indicates to whitespace devices that "hey, there's a wireless mic here". That's an extra expense for each existing installation, but again, wireless mics shouldn't get sole use of this extra space.
Parent
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, how about anyone and everyone at at concerts, conventions, sports stadiums, or churches?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh my LOLs.
I mean, seriously, bluetooth has a 100 ft. maximum distance for a reliable connection. That's only the width of a medium sized stage. You'd better hope nobody needs a wireless mic while talking to audience members or anything.
And BT just doesn't have the bandwidth to even 44.1khz stereo (although it does have enough for mono, but A2DP, the only non-shitty spec, specifies stereo). A2DP using SBC still doesn't give as accurate a rendition as an analog mic signal ever will. Maybe some of the oth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Follow the Money someone once said... The whole reason analog Television was killed was spectrum. Lovely lovely spectrum. A TV channel takes up a lot of room. The entire AM dial would fit inside Channel 2 with room to spare for ship to shore radio. The advantage of this is that even marginal signals will come in with a little fuzz. On the other hand, Digital takes up far less room. The disadvantage is that marginal channels just simply drop, pixelize or freeze. White space is the room around the digital cha
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:4, Informative)
Widely held misconception. A digital ATSC channel takes up 6MHz, same as an analog NTSC channel.
Parent
Re:How are we getting screwed on this one? (Score:4, Informative)
However, ATSC can transmit multiple SD sub-channels in one 6MHz band and use MPEG compression to save bandwidth, making it more bandwidth-efficient than NTSC. (So I would say that you and GP are both correct.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
CmdrTaco, read before you post (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those rare moments of government deregulations that its good enough for a repost.
Re:CmdrTaco, read before you post (Score:5, Insightful)
This is rather offtopic, but I'd like to say it anyways...
It used to be that the Slashdot frontpage was riddled with dupes. We complained every time that the editors were idiots, that they should have a system in place to recognize dupes. Many people even said that they emailed regarding the dupes while they were in the mysterious future, and yet the still hit the front page. Thus was born the Slashdot meme about every story being eventually duped.
But, I have to say that over the last while, the number of dupes is way, way down. The firehose and tagging seem to have alot to do with it--dupes are flagged earlier in the process, giving the editors the feedback they need.
Dupes are not entirely eliminated, but the frequency is down. So I'd like to say: thanks to the Slashdot staff for fixing the issue that we complained about. We are a whiny bunch, and it's too easy for us to complain but then forget to appreciate the things that are fixed (or have always been good). So, again, good work on the dupe reduction.
Parent
International compatability? (Score:4, Interesting)
Existing Wifi uses channels open for use internationally (more or less). It sounds to me that this might not be true in this case. That is one reason for alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be why the equipment checks to see if anything is radiating before it arcs up its own transmitter good sir. While this might not fly in a whole range of countries for what ever reason, it seems ok to me given that the television spectrum isn't exactly a hotbed for channels coming and going. It's more or less exactly the same day in, day out.
Re: (Score:2)
how much bandwidth? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It covers the US broadcast television spectrum, so several hundred megahertz potentially - VHF through UHF. There's a whole boat load of stuff in there that is not 'television' so it's understandable a lot of people are uneasy about it.
New Resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Rushing is usually bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is good for everyone if unused parts of the spectrum are utilized.
But my goodness... what is the rush that it could not wait a few more months while they tweaked the prototypes so they did not stomp on weak TV signals or wireless mics?
A few more months devoted to getting a succesful trial is nothing.
Re:Rushing is usually bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Conversely, if you have written the spec so that they must not stomp on licensed signals, why drag your feet on waiting on prototypes that are perfect?
Oh wait, I know... because really the problem is the people who are already illegally using the spectrum (i.e. broadcasters and their wireless mics) and who see this as a threat to their own monopolies want to kill the idea and playing the waiting game gives them more time to do it in.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that would be one way to look at it. BUT, we all know from experience that if you cannot get a low production prototype working, there is NO way it will work in mass production.
As for the wireless mics, while we now know they were not explicitly licenced, they have been in use with the full knowledge of the FCC. The FCC said NOTHING for 30 years. As a result, a lot of institutions have innocently invested thousands of dollars in the equipment and rely on them.
As a result of the inaction of the FCC,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, lets stick to a discussion and not get excited. Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not do that to you.
You said "there is an entire illegal underground full of people committing felony conspiracy"
First, if the government is allowing every Radio Shack and Music store to run underground businesses, we have a much bigger issue than wireless mics. lol
"Given the choice, you'd also rather reward people who conspire to break the law."
Sorry, where is the conspiricy? The innocent people who bought the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the devices are specifically designed NOT to do that and the only studies that say they will are the ones published by the companies fighting tooth and nail to kill this dead, I'd say you are talking FUD. It might be well meaning FUD, but its FUD all the same.
Think about it, your TV is getting a strong enough digital signal that you aren't getting macro blocking routinely already, and yet this signal is suppose to be weak enough that the whitespace device can't see it?
Even if the TV is between the tow
Rural Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally!
Rural areas with rolling hills and trees have really limited options with regard to high-speed Internet access. Line of sight just wasn't one of nature's design goals. It's really difficult to have a cottage high-tech industry without the infrastructure to support it and the population density simply isn't there for the telcos to have any incentive to build it out.
Your best bet is Wildblue with 750-1500ms latency and 256kbps upload speed. You get used to it but forget sharing say a vmware image or uploading anything of substantial size. If you spend the time to do it, you also face rate-limiting from WildBlue once you pass a bandwidth threshold. Let us not forget wiping the snow off the dish, throwing a trash bag over the lnb when it rains, and wiggling the dish when you lose signal.
Sure, rural users can try to order a T1 but since the wired infrastructure isn't built out (else the telco would be offering high-speed services), you can bet on "special construction charges" of at least $4k on top of the $500/month service charge. ISDN? Same issue.
What about getting a ham radio license? That's fine and all, provided you don't ever use encryption, don't mind people intercepting your data, and remember to identify your station periodically.
The truth is that more than half of the country simply cannot acquire high-speed Internet access for a reasonable rate.
Re: (Score:2)
What about getting a ham radio license? That's fine and all, provided you don't ever use encryption, don't mind people intercepting your data, and remember to identify your station periodically.
I don't know much about ham radio (or radio in general) but I thought that the frequencies of ham simply did not provide the bandwidth that would allow a reasonable highspeed rate... can you explain how that would be set up? You've piqued my curiosity.
Regulation isn't bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
They want to deregulate. Which means there will be no one authority to control these whitespaces. I don't think I need to explain what happens to an unmanaged network resource with multiple authorities competing; Multiple DHCP or domain controllers, etc.
And no matter how you cut the bandwidth, there will be overhead, which increases as a function of the number of devices. While these devices may be logically separated, they are not physically separated, making the entire spectrum act like a hub-based network. And devices outside the range of other transcievers can still cause interference so long as the the device at the remote can hear that interference.
So let me say that this is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. This is a tragedy of the commons problem. And it will be hugely exasperated in dense urban areas -- except on a larger footprint. Whereas before geographies with high densities of wifi devices could only interfere with each other up to a hundred meters or so, now we're talking about metro-wide interference. It'll be like CB radio, but for digital communication. And it will never compete with hardline installations like it could if it were regulated.
This is the simple truth -- unless the FCC puts some form of regulation onto these bands prior to their first use, it's going to be a nightmare. It would be far better to license these bands for **non-profit use** (note I did NOT say non-commercial) somewhat like Ham radio, where people needed to aquire a license to transmit, and take classes, and have an ID associated with transmissions, and a regulatory body to monitor specious transmissions and revoke licenses or shut down non-compliant equipment as necessary. This plan stands the best chance of achiving a usable public, wireless, high speed network... which incidentally could carry internet traffic. Anything less, and all it takes is a few jerks with high power transmitters in an area to render the entire spectrum useless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Way to beat down on that straw man. So impressive. Not.
Nobody is proposing total deregulation. The FCC has absolutely no intention of throwing open unlicensed TV bands to anybody to do anything. Nobody has asked them to, either. ('cept possible crackpots.) Whitespace devices will have wattage limits and spectrum width limits. Hell, even the TV stations themselves have wattage and spectrum limits. It's not going to be anarchy, any more than Wi-Fi frequencies are anarchic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even just from the URL, that's a press release from 2007 and has nothing to do with this whitespace issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that you are using the wireless microphone to demonstrate a couple of possible problems. I don't think that you've thought it through completely yet.
What happens when the mic is turned on/up. It will have to scan. If there is a WiFi link, it will have to move to the next channel and try again. Eventually, like the WiFi devices, it will find a channel and stay there. When WiFi devices are turned on, they will do the same. It's not nearly as bad as you think it's going to be. This type of link establish
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's not to like?