TV White Space & The Future of Wireless Broadband

DeviceGuru writes "The unoccupied radio spectrum between broadcast TV channels may soon become a source of low-cost, ubiquitous broadband connectivity. Earlier this month, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission began Phase II testing of 'white space device' prototypes, to determine whether WSDs can operate without interfering with the other wireless devices commonly used in homes, offices, and public locations. A key advantage of white space wireless technology, compared to the combination of WiFI and WiMAX, is its TV-like ability to cover broad areas and penetrate walls and trees, using relatively low power levels."

Time Warner is going to just love this idea

[elrous0]

With companies like Time Warner, who are both broadband providers and important content producers for broadcast TV, is there any doubt where the broadcast TV companies are going to come down on this "interference" issue?

I can hear it now:

Broadcast TV: Senator, this new scheme causes huge interference with our broadcast signal
Senator: This wouldn't have anything to do with Time Warner giving you the broadcast rights to a bunch of their movies and TV shows for a song, would it?
Broadcast TV: Don't be silly. We can answer any other questions you may have at the campaign fundraiser we're holding for you tonight.
Senator: I think I'm beginning to appreciate your point of view.

-Eric

Low power? are they kidding?

[LM741N]

Are they planning to have repeaters all over the place like the public wifi? If not they are going to need a lot of power. Some UHF TV stations run with a megawatt of RF. Its especially true in cities where the buildings create multipath distortion and/or block the signals entirely.

Why are we running out?

[cfulmer]

Isn't there just as much bandwidth between 3Ghz and 4Ghz as there is between 0Ghz and 1Ghz? Why do we carve out larger chunks at higher frequencies? It seems to me that the real answer is finer-grained transmitters and receivers.

Re:Low power? are they kidding?

[link5280]

The amount of power will depend on the bandwidth and the distance to repeaters or hubs. The infrastructure would have to be similar to a cell phone network, not a single tower servicing an entire metropolitan area like the current TV broadcast system. If the power can remain low and the infrastructure designed correctly it will work, otherwise it would be a flop with consumers. No one wants to carry around a 500 watt device to communicate.

Re:Great, another choice for those who have lots

[adamjgp]

Clearly businesses want to serve the least populated areas of the country. It is in their best interests to serve the least amount of people, usually with the lowest amount of disposable income. /sarcasm If you don't like your choices of broadband and TV, then I suggest either reading more, or moving.

Re:Great, another choice for those who have lots

[anglete]

I think this is actually great for rural areas. Most rural areas do receive TV signals. Some may not, but get broadband everywhere one step at a time.

I'm somewhat confused how the return will work (everybody has a tv station to broadcast with on their roof?)

Re:Low power? are they kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the client has to respond to the incoming signal, it needs to be low power. If not, the client cannot respond with his/her 12-50mW signal. So yes, they would need repeaters, but honestly, not many (or at least a reasonable amount, considering the number of repeaters for DSL). A bigger issue would be the antenna requirements for the clients.