Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking The Internet Hardware

White Space Plan Would Reuse TV Spectrum 150

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White Space Plan Would Reuse TV Spectrum

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Govern? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Thursday February 05, 2009 @05:47PM (#26744513) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by pieterh (196118) on Thursday February 05, 2009 @05:47PM (#26744517) Homepage

    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:Return Path? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Who Is The Drizzle (1470385) on Thursday February 05, 2009 @06:05PM (#26744807)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, 2009 @06:17PM (#26744991)

    Your excellent critique almost makes it seem like a good idea to respond to trolls. Nice work!

  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday February 05, 2009 @06:30PM (#26745155) Homepage

    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.)

  • Re:Return Path? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld&gmail,com> on Thursday February 05, 2009 @06:48PM (#26745365)

    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.

  • by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday February 05, 2009 @10:39PM (#26747457)

    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.

  • by Elwood_Black (1384855) on Thursday February 05, 2009 @11:53PM (#26747999)
    BOTH of you wake up! Digital TV channels are NOT as wide as analog TV channels. Also, the digital TV signal is virtually immune to low level interference. If you look on the FCC database you can already find extensive use of the "in between" space between other radio services channel allotments. There are two-way radio systems, monitoring devices, various digital links and all sorts of other goodies, even radio astronomy. Currently on the spectrum chart you can find multiple frequency ranges allocated for several radio services. (source:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf) The telco's will respond by finding a market to sell to. For example, many automatically controlled radio systems are not allowed to be controlled by a link that is part of the primary radio channel. Telephone companies can fill this need the same way they have for the past 70 years - they sell dedicated lines meant for the remote control of communications equipment. The reason comm equipment cannot be remote controlled over its own radio channel is because if something goes wrong with that device that requires it to be shut down its radio channel may be compromised. Telephone lines don't use the radio link, its just a pair of copper wires connected to a switching device. We do this all the time in the broadcast and communications world.
  • by RocketRabbit (830691) on Friday February 06, 2009 @12:11AM (#26748119)

    Rural viewers can always mount a directional antenna aimed at the nearest large market of their choice. I agree, the whole thing stinks, but it's not the end of the world.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...