Slashdot Log In
White Space Plan Would Reuse TV Spectrum
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Feb 05, 2009 04:41 PM
from the this-time-for-good-not-for-evil dept.
from the this-time-for-good-not-for-evil dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A collection of companies including Microsoft, Google and Motorola are teaming up for a new white space wireless network plan. The White Spaces Database Group, as it will be known, plans on formulating a plan to create, govern and maintain a wireless broadband network on abandoned analog television spectrum. When the spectrum is finally vacated in June, the group hopes that system in place which will allow for the creation of an open wireless broadband network which will be accessible by any device. The FCC officially approved keeping the spectrum open back in November, despite staunch opposition from telco firms."
Related Stories
Submission: Tech giants propose white space wireless plan by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
White space? (Score:5, Funny)
Why you being racist like that? Do whites really need more space? Don't they have enough already?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you have all that "dark fiber" out there.. what's wrong with a bit of "white space" for us common folk in flyover territory?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How the telcos will respond (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very profound threat to lucrative mobile cartels. Yet it's absolutely necessary as a step on the way to opening the airwaves to serve a real global Internet. My prediction: the telcos will respond with patent litigation, and with "think of the children and *AA" legislative proposals to tie the new open networks up in monitoring, filtering, and other restrictions on use.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget who holds the cards on the backbone, mostly telecom companies.
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not happy about it.
I live in Lancaster PA. The TV Band (whitespace) Devices will broadcast over top of, and block my Baltimore/Philly stations. No more 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61,65 - no more Orioles, Raven, Phillies, or Eagles games. Less variety & loss of free television is not something I'm looking forward to.
Parent
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:5, Funny)
> I live in Lancaster PA.
No worries. You Amish don't watch TV anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The TV Band (whitespace) Devices will broadcast over top of, and block my Baltimore/Philly stations.
Prove it. Oh, wait... you can't, as there currenlty are no licensed whitespace devices out in the market.
The FCC is requiring that whitespace devices not interfere with DTV and wireless mic signals. I bet that you would get a rapid and effective response from the FCC if you *really* did have a whitespace device that was fucking up your TV signal.
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:4, Informative)
>>>The FCC is requiring that whitespace devices not interfere with DTV
You mean *in-market* DTV. Out-of-market DTV is not protected, which is why I will lose the Baltimore-Philadelphia stations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're speaking of it as if it is a certainty. You might want to wait and see just how good these devices are. I bet that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the state of the computer-controlled radio art.
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:5, Informative)
>>> Hey you, wake up! Your (analog) stations are going away in June, whether this wireless broadband network gets off the ground or not.
Hey you, wake up!
The digital stations will still be there you dope. On channels 2 to 51. Duh.
Parent
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Only you need to wake up... (Score:5, Informative)
First off, ATSC channels are the same 6MHz as NTSC channels.
Secondly, if you take a peek at a spectrum analyzer, you'll see a big, fat, non-peaky pedestal of signal for digital TV. It's about as immune to low-level interference as I am to ebola.
Thirdly, radio astromony is given a "big" empty space (channel 37).
Fourthly, the day that we call 100mW "low-level interference" is the day that we all, women included, have seven testicles.
Fifthly, these devices are so overpowered that they knock out cable [washingtonpost.com] TV.
Sixthly, there are ways (other frequencies, spread spectrum, burst transmission) to control high-bandwidth wireless devices wirelessly.
Seventhly, I had to go up to "sixthly." If you're really in the broadcast and communication "world" (do you mean industry?), you should consider boning up or getting out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take analog blipping over MPEG dropped-p-frame-ing, but your point that the signal itself doesn't directly denote error-resistance is valid. What that signal causes a broadcaster to do (need to broadcast at a higher power) is the more important thing. It's worth noting that the FCC defines transmission power differently for NTSC and ATSC signals, so we can't be completely apples-to-apples on this.
The spectrum lets us know what the transmission power looks like (thinking about the integral of the spec
Re:How the telcos will respond (Score:4, Informative)
Non-relevant. The TV Band (whitespace) Devices will broadcast over top of my Baltimore/Philly stations, since they are considered "out of market" for my town.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
>>> "maintain a wireless broadband network on the abandoned analogue television spectrum."
The article summary is wrong. The November meeting with the FCC approved TV Band/whitespace Devices to operate *on* the channels on the television dial (2 to 51). This is not abandoned spectrum. On the contrary, it's very active spectrum - active with Digital and High-Def TV.
This is social justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is social justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's terrible for consumers. First, not auctioning off this spectrum deprives tax payers of money. When you think about it, it's really criminal that the government doesn't auction off all of our services and rights to private enterprise. We could make SO MUCH money!
Also, by providing "free" things, you're depriving companies of revenue, which will damage the economy. They'll have to charge more for other services, and probably cut jobs too. We want the telecoms to make as much money as possible, because then the economy will thrive.
(Of course I'm not serious, but apparently some people think like this.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Also, by providing "free" things,
No, not free. There will be a fee to access the whitespace, according to the FCC ruling back in November.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>There is no downside here for consumers.
Actually there's one very major downside: A rural viewer might be watching channel 10 to catch-up on the news, and suddenly the kid next door turns-on his TV Ban/whitespace Device and starts broadcasting over the same channel 10. The rural viewer will see garbage just like this:
http://www.interferencezones.com/ [interferencezones.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Return Path? (Score:2)
Re:Return Path? (Score:5, Informative)
Health concerns have scientifically been oput to rest. There isn't really anything you can do about peple who just make shit up and ignore facts.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Health concerns have scientifically been oput to rest. There isn't really anything you can do about peple who just make shit up and ignore facts.
I have no doubt that they've been put to rest as far as we know, but when it comes to medicine and health, our science has always been imprecise. Something that is good and safe this year will be bad and will kill you the next. This is the problem when half the conclusions being drawn are along the lines of "We have no idea how or why this works, but in a double blind trial of 300 people, we show a 15% improvement."
Not that I believe there are health concerns with wireless technology, just saying that
Re:Return Path? (Score:5, Insightful)
See friend, that's the difference between the human body, which is imperfectly understood, if at all, and say... RADIO WAVES, which we pretty much understand all significant issues of.
If you give me a pill and say "We don't think this will kill you.", I have a legitimate concern.
If you give me a cell phone and say "its impact on you is less than the impact of the background radiation you are exposed to daily 24/7, we know this via several methods, most significantly a through understanding of how radio waves propagate." I don't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should be expect yet another cellular radio network? Is that a good thing, given that health concerns have not been laid to rest completely?
Sine when have they not been put to rest? Just because a bunch of loonies disagree with the science that debunked their claims doesn't mean their concerns haven't been put to rest.
Re: (Score:2)
They originally chose the frequencies involved because they propagate quite easily through the Earth's atmosphere (unlike 2.4GHz, to which our atmosphere basically looks opaque, and the FCC only threw us that scrap because all the Big Boys considered it nearly worthless).
As for transmission power, with a good high-gain directional transceiver, you only need to make up for losses between you and the other end; so if 2.4GHz works fine
Whitespace?? (Score:4, Informative)
Summary doesn't make sense (Score:3, Informative)
Are they talking white space or are they talking 700 MHz?
White space means unused TV channels, which means 470-700 MHz after the transition.
What it sounds like, however, is that they're referring to the rules that will govern the new 700 MHz allocations that were auctioned last year.
There is no "abandoned" analog bandwidth. The top 100 MHz of the UHF TV band were reallocated to other services and the TV broadcasters were "packed in" closer together thanks to ATSC's less stringent adjacent channel spacing requirements.
UHF Wireless Microphones & Ham Radio (Score:5, Interesting)
Are those UHF Wireless Mics licensed? (Score:2)
If they are not licensed, then by what right do you expect them to not get interference? One unlicensed user has just as much right to the spectrum as another. If the mike's were digital, they could, I think, happily co-exist with other digital users of that white-space spectrum. Outside of ham-bands, I begin to think that analog radio devices will quickly become a think of the past - the problem with analog stuff is that basically only one user (or one group of users) can use a certain frequency at a time.
Sorry to break this to you... (Score:5, Informative)
...but if your wireless mics really are in the TV bands, and really aren't Part 15 devices, then they're Part 74, Subpart H devices [gpoaccess.gov], which do require a license. There are no other options. You're one of many who've been sold a bill of goods by unscrupulous manufacturers of these microphones which, by law, can only be licensed to television stations, broadcast networks, cable television systems, motion picture producers, television program producers, and Multipoint Multichannel Distribution System (MMDS) licensees (Title 47 USC, 74.832 [gpoaccess.gov]). See this [rdrop.com] for a pretty good, if slightly dated, FAQ on what's required to license a wireless microphone in the US.
These microphones typically will be offered no protection against interference from whitespace protocols like the IEEE 802.22 standard [wikipedia.org]. Note that the IEEE 802.22 group [ieee802.org] is also in the final stages of standardizing a beacon protocol, IEEE 802.22.1 [pdf] [ieee.org]. This beacon is to be present whenever the (licensed) wireless microphone is in operation, and produces a signal easier to detect (at a greater range) than the microphone itself, so that cognitive white space secondary users can more reliably determine that that television channel is occupied and move elsewhere. This system avoids interference to the wireless microphone by the secondary user.
Parent
what i want to see is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I won't say "get those FRS radios." Get those GMRS radios and the license. Or get those MURS radios without a license (VHF). There are already solutions to the problem you want so
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, we already have MURS (VHF 5 channels) and GMRS (UHF 14 channels). I would rather see CB'ers put some where on the 900 MHz band, say the 901-902 portion, NBFM 3 watts 100 channels. The BIG DOGS (the Prime Minister aka Sir Mixalot comes to mind) who run 1-30+ kw on 11 meters would never be able to run major amounts of power at 900 MHz. One is the cost of building amps that can run this kind power level is beyond cost prohibitive, not to mention the extreme dangers of near field in the sub microwave band
Wireless Mesh? (Score:2)
Consider how well 700 MHz propogates.
Now consider that every previous attempt to create a wireless mesh network has failed because none has ever achieved sufficient density to qualify as a mesh. Whitespace base stations (non-portable devices) can transmit at 1 watt, with a maximum EIRP of 4 watts. With a sufficiently clever encoding scheme, such devices should be able to hear each other over a long enough distance to finally get over the hump and establish a usable mesh. Portable devices can transmit at
Re:Govern? (Score:4, Insightful)
What? you want any large corporation to just be able to take it all for themselves?
That's really the other choice. Govern it, or let the biggest bully take it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of the players listed in the summary, one has a history of impeding development in the marketplace to increase dependence on their own products.
This process will be open you say? So was MS XML standard ratification process.
905 of my income comes from working with MS products, but I don't want them anywhere near processes like this. Just my .02.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering all the players, and the government would be involved, and that it is in MS's best interest to keep it open. I'm not really that worried. They want to software that can be used on any device. If they had sole control, the they would have a hard time getting other players.
Yes, I do know MS's history, and if it was just them I would be concerned..of course I would be concerned is it was under control of ANY single company.
905 is supposed to be 90%, right? I had to stare at it for a moment before
Re:Govern? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, there are some basic rules which keep the different devices from trampling each other, and there are licenses within that spectrum which are allowed to dominate anyone else and may not be interfered with. So, imagine what such a useful chunk of spectrum, without any licenses encumbering it, and left as a playground for anyone to use could result in.
On the whole, I'd love to see the vacated spectrum kept as a public resource with anyone allowed to put anything into it which they wish. The understanding would simply be that others will operate in that space as well so any device needs to be fault tolerant, and ideally, play nice with others.
Of course, the Federal Censorship Commission (FCC) being what it is, I imagine that we'd quickly see rules slapped onto it about "indecent" content.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't like the sound of that.
Why not? All the companies listed have a vested interest in getting rid of the middle-man (telcos) in order to ensure maximum profit for their respective businesses. Google wants to make sure you can see their ads on any device anywhere. Motorola wants to make a lot of those devices. Microsoft wants to do both. The telcos have done nothing but limit all of these companies (and thus, us, the consumer) with their strangle-hold on the spectrum thus far.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you qualified? being open doesn't mean any yahoo can run the thing.
Re:Welcome to Niggerbuntu (Score:5, Funny)
That you actually put effort into copying and pasting this product of an unhappy childish mind suggests that you should look for professional help and/or consider medication.
Some points of accuracy for your text. First, the attempt to dismiss African culture with insults does not work. There are many good ways to criticize Africa, but they do not rely on contempt for the amount of melanin in the skin. You need to find better metrics. There is, despite the attempts of thousands of people who share your medical condition, no correlation between skin color and level of "humanism".
Second, you attempt to associate free and open source software with "stealing". This is a self-defeating insult since it's so obviously the opposite of the truth. As sarcasm, it does not work. I'd suggest calling it "amateuristic", or "naive", or even "chaotic". But "stealing" does simply not hurt.
To help you, it's as if someone gave you a large chocolate cookie, and you threw it away, saying it was excrement. Basically, no-one would mind, and you would look like a fool, which you are.
Finally, you appear to evoke the Creationism vs. Evolution fights by referring copiously to monkeys. Again, if you want to insult humans, do so by pointing to aspects that are truly offensive, such as their ability to waste the bounty of cheap modern-day communications with drivel like your post. Referring to our evolutionary heritage - while perhaps the most accurate part of your text - is simply not hurtful. It's like pointing to a car and saying, in a sneering voice, "look, a mechanical horse!"
My advice would be to see, in order, a physician, a pharmacist, and an English teacher.
Thank you
-- Slashdot
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your excellent critique almost makes it seem like a good idea to respond to trolls. Nice work!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Automatically say no. (Score:5, Funny)
Any time Microsoft and Google decide to partner on something, you know the rest of us are just going to get screwed.
Because why, exactly? And before you start, try going with a reasoned argument, rather than paranoid ramblings. I know that's asking a lot, but...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Because why, exactly? And before you start, try going with a reasoned argument, rather than paranoid ramblings. I know that's asking a lot, but...
I would be reluctant to classify as a paranoid ramblings a general distrust of concentrated power. A distrust of concentrated power is one of the few consensus's behind most mainstream Americans. We distrust the government, so we divide it between cities, counties states and the federal, and in each of those cases, we further divide that same government into leg
Re: (Score:2)
So... you say, given that two of the most important software companies in the world are collaborating, how could it be a paranoid rambling to distrust them?
Oh, I don't know... because the most important software companies in the world collaborating gave us *UNIX* (or, I suppose I should say POSIX), among other things.
Trust me, you're paranoid. Companies working together to agree to an interoperable standard is a *good* thing, not a "[concentration] of power".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Any time Microsoft and Google decide to partner on something, you know the rest of us are just going to get screwed.
Right now, with many of us having only one choice for the local loop (or is it only called the last mile these days? I'm showing my age), we're already screwed. This initiative is the very competition you seek.