Free Wireless Band Gets FCC OK 77
narramissic writes "Last month the FCC conducted tests to determine whether mobile devices using a new US radio band (2,155 to 2,175 MHz) with free wireless service would cause significant interference with cell phones using a nearby band. Now, the results are in and in a report released Friday, the FCC concluded that 'the analysis shows that an AWS-1 and AWS-3 device operating in close proximity does not necessarily result in interference.' Still, T-Mobile accuses the FCC of basing its conclusions on new assumptions that weren't used when the tests took place. But at least one party is happy: M2Z praised the report, saying 'There is no longer any need for American consumers, the public interest and the FCC's regulatory process to be held hostage as it has been for the last five months by incumbent carriers... who have used unfounded claims of interference to disguise their intent to prevent the introduction of new broadband competition in the AWS-3 band.'"
Free as in....... (Score:3, Interesting)
Due Diligence (Score:5, Interesting)
1. It was a bench test. Nice, but if you really want to stand up to any REAL interference, the only way you're going to find out what's wrong is to put it up in a live environment (such as what they were doing in Reno).
2. The report acknowledges omissions of several variables that WILL affect emissions when the system goes live. That's a disqualifier right there.
3. The speed of publication. I find it very hard to accept such a hastily written report about a bench test coming from OET when they still haven't figured out what's going on with the 700 MHz band.
And to think, I could have been working with these guys. Glad I decided to look elsewhere for employment. Sheesh.
Re:Any competition is good but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am on dialup and I am ignoring your 'only 300kb/s' statement. Also, why does it seem government officals always want to censor everything? This is against the constitutional idea of the state not estabilishing a religion. It isn't against my religion to view naked pictures or violence. As for the argument to "protect the children", I think the fake violence which is out of touch with reality is more damaging to children.
The FCC isn't doing this to create free internet access. They are trying to make the fact they are selling off all of our radio spectrum more palatable. (Though maybe the US edition of the Taliban wants us all to have censored internet too.) Read the article:
Where do you think all the money is coming from for things like the bailout? Besides taking huge loans and printing money, the government is "creating wealth" by selling off our rights. What will be next?
This is why we are stuck with only a few small crap bands for 802.11 wireless networking. Just imagine if the FCC had allocated the spectrum freed by analog TV for public wireless networking. We could have networking which could reach miles not feet. You would essentially have a sharable network with all your neighbors. This would make the internet obsolete for most P2P operations--among other things.
Interference is a strawman cellphone and other companies use because they don't want any competition. They are quite happy charging absurd amounts for their services.
Re:Free as in....... (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is this modded interesting?
Re:Get the FCC OK! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. The FCC is "off" on this decision.
I'm afraid I'm going to lose my over-the-air DTV reception. I can easily imagine the girl next door going for a jog & turning-on her whitespace-enabled Ipod to stream Miley Cyrus radio. Then all my Washington D.C. stations will disappear since her Ipod will think those are open channels. That's just great; just wonderful; how brilliant of the FCC Chair to damage free television.
Since OTA viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83, let the white space gadgets use the space. There's no need to interfere with channels 2 to 51.
Re:Get the FCC OK! (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly my thinking. The problem is that the FCC is making decisions without proper and careful scientific measurement of the data. This is just plain crooked. I blame the fact that consumers have been duped into accepting poor quality is the norm. Look at how much cell phones and smart phones suck ass. NO ONE would have accepted these products in the mid 20th century. Can you imagine what would have happened to Bell telephone in the 1960s and 1970s if customers had conversations dropping in the middle with no explanation? No one seems to expect companies to strive for perfection these days. "So what if it interferes a little with a few people here or there. That's 'highly unlikely' and where it happens it's only one or two people"! No more quality I tell you. I'm starting to sound like my inlaws...
Re:Get the FCC OK! (Score:3, Interesting)
yea, it's just too bad you don't own the airwaves. the radio spectrum is a shared public resource--a limited resource at that. therefor, the FCC made the right decision by choosing public interest over corporate interest (or in your case, an incredibly small minority interest).
i highly doubt this ruling will suddenly cripple all DTV broadcasts, but even if it did, it's still preferable to have a free wireless broadband data network over a free DTV network. why limit this UHF spectrum to DTV broadcasts when using it to extend broadband infrastructure would provide much more public utility? the major TV networks can stream video/audio over the internet, which the public can receive using free wireless, but limiting this spectrum to DTV broadcasts would not allow the public to access the web, internet radio, streaming video, VoIP, and the endless list of other applications an open/public network like the internet enables.
it may be an inconvenience to you that you cannot receive DTV signals from far outside of their broadcast area, but that's hardly a reason to impede technological progress. stop thinking so small and try to see the bigger picture here.
right now a handful of cellular carriers and telecoms hold a complete monopoly on telecommunications with their proprietary communication networks. because of this, they can charge extortionate rates while providing shoddy service. they also have complete control over what devices can connect to their networks and, because their business model depends on it, purposely cripple consumer handsets (such as disabling the use of mp3s as ringtones to force subscribers to buy them from their carrier at jacked up prices), hindering the development of new and potentially useful cellular applications (e.g. video calls or much earlier adoption of mobile TV).
compare this with the progress of the internet/web over the same amount of time. anyone can develop their own applications on the internet because of its open nature. this has fueled innovation and spurred the growth of the web as an application platform. frankly, the internet provides much more benefit & utility to the average person than closed/proprietary telecom, TV, and radio networks. and as a generalized digital communication network, the internet is capable of filling the roles of all of the above specialized proprietary networks. you can already make & receive calls using VoIP (and even video calls with VVoIP), and internet radio offers a much more diversified range of music than the Clear-Channel-dominated FM radio. the public also has access to a lot more video content on the internet than with traditional terrestrial broadcasts.
heck, you can broadcast your own internet video stream and run your own "TV" channel once all of these parallel (and redundant) proprietary networks are absorbed by the internet. the internet allows regular individuals to be content producers rather than just consumers. this decentralization of content distribution has resulted in a democratization of the media. and once we have a nationwide public wireless infrastructure, internet media will be able to go anywhere that TV/radio can go today--and much further.
And the problem with your argument is... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are comparing two different things. For television and radio, they each have a public and private version, over-the-air television vs. cable tv and over-the-air radio vs. XM satellite radio. In both cases, the two "networks" are for the most part mutually exclusive with the exception that the private networks may carry public content on their networks but not the reverse.
On the other hand, there is one internet. Whether it's public internet access or private internet access both still connect to the same internet. The other thing is with over-the-air television and radio you are required to have a broadcast license with the FCC. Are you suggesting that every content provider on the internet should have such a license because it can be accessed via public internet access? Or are you suggesting that the provider of public internet access should be responsible for the content of the internet? In the private sector, it has already been determined that network service providers cannot be responsible for the how their networks are used much less for the content on the internet. It follows that one could not expect the same from a public internet access provider for the same reasons. It is simply not possible for the provider to filter their network traffic because clever users will always find a way around it.
We can take this logic a step further and ask whether all public places of business that have no age restriction and offer free WIFI access have to censor their internet access because a child could potentially view porn through their internet connection.
Personally, I consider the internet something you use at your own risk. I also think the same responsibility that lies with the parents to be aware of and use appropriate measures to filter the internet using private internet access also applies to using public internet access.
I also sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that a separate public internet be created because it would essentially be useless. People would complain about not being able to access their mail accounts and favorite web sites etc. etc. You really don't want to go back to the days of Compuserve and AOL 1.0 *shudder* do you?