Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

WiFi Signals In Between Television Frequencies 193

Posted by CmdrTaco from the will-this-work dept.
compgenius3 writes "The FCC unanimously voted today to allow wireless providers to use the frequencies between television stations to broadcast WiFi in rural areas. Broadcasters argue that this will cause interference on television stations but the FCC chairman says otherwise." Update: 05/18 23:40 GMT by T : compgenius3 points out NAB president Edward Fritts' skepticism of the plan, as reflected in this press release citing fears of intereference to over-the-air broadcasts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WiFi Signals In Between Television Frequencies More

WiFi Signals In Between Television Frequencies

Comments Filter:

  • A valid concern (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:05AM (#9183693)
    From my experience as a ham radio operator (KE3PB) I know that RF interference is certainly possible unless every precaution (and then some...) is taken. There can be harmonics, spurious signals, oscillators, etcInterference in this case is a very valid concern but one that can be adequately addressed if all parties work cooperatively together.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    • The FCC won't bow to broadcasters, but if there is interference, enough customer complaints might spark some change. Otherwise they can just get DirecTV [directv.com] or Dish Network [dishnetwork.com]. Somehow, I don't think that people in "rural" areas who depend on broadcast TV (trailer parks?) will go for the satellite option.

      • Trailer Parks? (Score:5, Informative)

        by gregarican ( 694358 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:20AM (#9183864) Homepage
        Have you driven by one lately? There are a surprising amount of satellite dishes at some of them. Even before all of the DirecTV and Dish Network varieties there were those behemoth dishes sitting next to the cable spool/picnic tables.

      • Re:A valid concern (Score:5, Insightful)

        by doon ( 23278 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:35AM (#9184040) Homepage
        I don't think that people in "rural" areas who depend on broadcast TV (trailer parks?) will go for the satellite option. You have no idea about High Class White trash living do you? My brother installs DSL for a rural telco. You probably wouldn't belived the stories I get to hear about the rusted out trailer with a DirectTV dish on the side, a Harley and a mustang (the car not the horse) in the driveway, and how he has to climb over all sorts of crap/garbage to get to the computer. It is mostly that their priorities are different.
        Please don't take this as a bash against trailer parks, I know a bunch of really great hard working people that happen to live in a trailer park, but I have also seen some pretty odd things..
        • > Please don't take this as a bash against trailer parks, I know a bunch of really
          > great hard working people that happen to live in a trailer park, but I have also
          > seen some pretty odd things..

          In England we don't really have trailer parks. We have Pikeys (people who steal things for a `living`) but I think your trailer trash types would be living (for free, on state handouts) in council estates in the UK. I think they probably smell about the same, think the world is against them (despite the ha

          • Re:A valid concern (Score:2, Informative)

            by Rude Turnip ( 49495 )
            In the US, trailer parks are akin to apartment communities, except they only provide the land and utility hookups and you must provide the home. We stick our welfare recipients in seedy motels.

    • Re:A valid concern (Score:5, Informative)

      by mstovenour ( 723168 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:18AM (#9183834) Journal
      I agree. The current regulatory environment makes it more and more important to have abuse monitoring and enforcement of the strict transmission rules. However, I only see regulations loosening up with no effort to extend monitoring and enforcement. This trend is likely to result in serious problems from the consumer's perspective.

      I live in an area that is already targeted by wide area WiFi and other technologies. I occasionally experience 1 or 2 hours where I cannot receive broadcast TV, FM radio, or even weather alert radio broadcasts. During the event I cannot receive broadcasts at my home or FM radio in my car within a mile or so. I strongly suspect that it is a wireless operator in my local area but proving it will take some serious effort on my part. I always notice when the event begins because my wireless mouse stops working.

      • Re:A valid concern (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rawg ( 23000 )
        It's more likely a CBer than a WiFi ISP. Them CBers love to hook up huge amps and flood the spectrum with noise. I had one here knocking out the TV. They got busted.
      • It is illegal to cause such interference. Bring it to the attention of the authorities and your problems will be solved fairly soon.
        • It is not illegal to cause interference.

          If the person causing the interference is operating their transmitter in accord with the conditions of their FCC license, and the transmitter is operating properly, they are not at fault.

          Most of the reported problems of TVI/RFI are not caused by defective or improperly operated transmitters. They are caused by poorly designed and shielded consumer electronics equipment. Most consumer electronics equipment could be made reasonably resistant to interference with a f

      • Re:A valid concern (Score:3, Informative)

        by dacarr ( 562277 )
        Follow the directions of the other two responders on this one. The FCC can generally track down the source of this and end it outright - between fining the perpetrator and confiscating their equipment, once you report, they'll get right on it.

        Although, I kind of doubt it's a chicken bander.

      • "I occasionally experience 1 or 2 hours where I cannot receive broadcast TV, FM radio, or even weather alert radio broadcasts. During the event I cannot receive broadcasts at my home or FM radio in my car within a mile or so"

        You are being targeted. I'd be seriously concerned!

      • The FCC has for its entire history put most of the burden on transmitters to avoid interfering with other devices and 50 years ago that might have made sense, today it does not.

        The idea was that 50 years ago most use of the airways was broascast and requiring smart transmitters enabled receivers to be dumb (and thus cheaper). Today as more and more use of the airways is bi-directional there is no particular cost advantage to putting the burden of interference solely on either the receiver or the transmitt

    • Digital (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Giant Panda ( 779279 )
      When all stations go digital, will this still be an issue? Can the digital TV hardware compensate / filter these harmonics, spurious signals, and oscillations?

      • It depends (Score:5, Informative)

        by bsd4me ( 759597 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:32AM (#9184001)

        OFDM is used for over-the-air digital TV, and it is fairly robust to nasties. A digital receiver can eliminate interference to an extent through adaptive processing, or compensate for it through FEC, but you can always get to a point where interference and/or noise will wonk a signal (eg, sun outages in geostationary satellite applications).

        • COFDM is used for European DTV. Here in the US, we use 8-VSB (vestigial sideband) modulation for terrestrial digital television.

          • Thanks for the correction. Some people use the terms OFDM and COFDM interchangably, but COFDM is correct. I have only worked with DVB, and I forgot that 8VSB is used in the US.

      • Re:Digital (Score:3, Interesting)

        by erick99 ( 743982 ) *
        Even digital signals start out as an analog signal via the oscillator. This is generally a very low powered signal. However, it is still there. You can, for example, use a scanner to listen to calls from your digital cordless phone by finding the analog spur. Even spread sprectrum phones are going to have some sort of analog signal somewhere in the transmitter front-end.

        Happy Trails!

        Erick

        P.S. I am *not* an engineer, just a long-time ham radio guy so you engineers out there feel free to correct or amplif

    • darn tootin' Re:A valid concern (Score:5, Informative)

      by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:23AM (#9183906) Homepage Journal
      the FCC is totally clueless in this iteration. there is a reason the space between TV channel assignments is called "guard bands," it keeps interference from generating third signals in the receivers (heterodynes, if you want to check the engineering details) that fall in the intermediate tuning circuits and mung up the signal. heterodynes with a strong local signal can wipe a whole TV out. and since there is no shielding worth noting in a commercial set, this means whoever puts up a wi-fi is responsible for zoning out the neighborhood.

      there would of course be little impact if the darned TV sets were shielded from RF interference. they aren't because it would cost a few quarters to do it, at worst case $5 to the retail buyer when they wave plastic at the best buy counter.

      if you have tried to put a cable TV or satellite box under your TV set, you know what I mean; screens full of little electronic worms.

      unless FCC mandates retroactive shielding and all future sets being shielded before sale, this will become a nightmare.

      ex-broadcaster, ex-ham, ex-recording engineer, I know interference is real and ugly. don't make any more.
      • NOTE: IANAEE (I am not an EE)

        I agree that this plan sounds fraught with dificulties, but I believe that the FCC plan does not involve 'guard bands' instead it deals with unused channels, ie in my area (not exactly rural) there are plenty of unused channels b/w 5 and 51, (6,8,10,12,15-19,21-23,25,27-31,33-35,37-39,41-44, 46-49,51), and I'm being generous about which channels can be recieved.
        • Did a litle research at antennaweb.org and the actuall list of what 'should' be unused in my area is a bit shorter:
          6,10,12,17-19,23,25,28,30-31,35,37,42,44 ,47,51

          I wasn't including HD channels before, and there were a few I had forgotten about, I have been using only cable for many years now.

          Thats still 17 unused channels, and I live right between two major cities (DC and Baltimore).
        • The only problem here will be interference for those rare individuals who make a hobby out of receiving broadcast TV from 100 or more miles away.

      • Re:darn tootin' Re:A valid concern (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kandrewnet ( 733005 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:21AM (#9184549) Homepage
        I am an ex-broadcast engineer and can guarantee that they aren't using the guard bands between TV stations - because there are no guard bands! Each channel butts up next to the last one.

        Interference is avoided by not assigning two adjacent channels in the same market.

        Television channels are 6Mhz wide. A Wi-Fi signal occupies 30Mhz [ernet.in] so I'm guessing they will need 7 channels in a row with nothing broadcast (5 for the spectrum needed with 1 on each side to avoid interference).

        Interference avoidance is nothing new to broadcasters. Aside from television channels assigned they also have had to deal with microwave live trucks, satellite transmissions, etc.

        Andrew
        • This won't be standard IEEE 802.11b operating in these frequency ranges. It will be something different. From what I've read about this matter recently, 6MHz chunks of spectrum will be used. Adding that info in with what you've just posted here, it sounds like they are freeing up unused TV channels for new wireless channels.

          So, in my area, say VHF channels 4, 6, and 8 are used. 5 and 7 (along with everything below 4 and above 8) would now be unlicensed wireless spectrum.

          Disclaimer: I am not any
        • there are narrow guard bands in each channel between video and audio, larger guard bands between channels, but only something like 120 KHZ or something (sorry, have to go by memory at this time, not at my bookcase location) between channels.

          in assignment in a SMSA, FCC has kept signals at least one channel apart in the class-B contour area (referring to level of signal out to the "fringe viewing area.") some of the largest cities may indeed have adjacent channels assigned and in use. almost everywhere, c
      • You are absolutely right. Fortunately I live in the UK, it is not a problem here (yet?). But most domestic equipment,especially the older stuff, is junk, and has so many spurious responses.....

        Our channel assignments were carefully worked out very many years ago, so that taking into account the standard IF frequency on TV sets (around 38MHz), there would be as few inompatabilities as possible, taking image frequency response and all that kind of stuff into account. In those days TV sets had front-end select

        • nope, device design went all in the dumper when they got rid of tuned circuits and put in voltage-dependent non-linear sharp-edged semiconductor tuning diodes in their place. I won't even tell any 50-Hz scanning jokes, because it worked nice to shoot sound film at 25 fps to run on the beeb, and it plays well when resold over here in 24 fps territory (scan even frames twice, scan odd frames once, to map to 60 Hz scanning.)

          we're all going digital sooner than we're ready as customers, and DTV in the US syste
          • I am glad we seem to agree, and even more glad that some of us remember the days when they tried hard to do things properly, even though the technology was not quite ready. Now they have the basic technology, but use it to make junk, and more junk, and I mean program material as well as hardware......
    • But we must remember that this is analog transmissions. 2006, that will be history, w/ Digital transmissions being used. IANARE (Radio Engineer) but wouldn't it be so much easier to filter out or ignore WiFi noise?
    • Coordinating this could be very tricky. I would be curious what exactly they are doing to prevent such situations as (i forget the technical term for it 'hidden reciever' I think) this:

      NOTE: The numbers are probably unrealistic, but I am just trying to make a point.

      For the sake of arguemnt lets say we have a tv station with an effective range of 20 miles, and a WiFi operator with an effective range of 10 miles. The two antenaes are 25 miles apart. So the WiFi listens, but can't hear the TV station so it u

  • This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ViolentGreen ( 704134 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:07AM (#9183710)
    This will provide millions of people who cannot get wired broadband with an alternative along with a possible cheaper alternative for those of us who can but are too cheap to get it.

    Perhaps it will drive the wired broadband prices down as well. That way whoever wins the election can take credit for it.

    • Re:This is great news! (Score:5, Funny)

      by celeritas_2 ( 750289 ) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:14AM (#9183782)
      Finally no more taking the buggy to town to download the latest Mandrake!
    • I have several thousand dollars of wireless microphones that opperate in at least one of the frequency ranges we're talking about here (170MHz to 210 MHz). If the signal from the WiFi is strong enough, I'm going to have several thousand dollars of paperweights instead... I'd like to see more details on exactly what frequencies they plan to allocate and how much power will be allowed. I specifically bought my microphones such that they wouldn't conflict with existing TV stations.

  • What about FM? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:09AM (#9183731)
    Doesn't the entire FM range fall between channels 6 and 7? Why aren't the TV stations getting pissed off at the FM stations???

    • Re:What about FM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Professor_Quail ( 610443 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:13AM (#9183780) Homepage
      Yes, channel 6 is 83.25 Mhz, channel 7 is 175.25 MHz...channels 2-6 are 'VHF-LO' and 7-13 is 'VHF-HI'

      UHF starts at channel 14 @ 471.25 MHz...

      See this page [hawaii.edu] for more info.

    • Re:What about FM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jgabby ( 158126 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:39AM (#9184083) Journal
      The TV stations aren't pissed off at the FM stations because TV and FM don't have to share any spectrum, and FM is also a licensed and regulated service. There is a nearly 100 MHz break between channels 6 and 7 used for FM, Aircraft navigation and communication, and various other things.

      This is different because it proposes using 'unused tv channels' to carry unlicensed signals. (Take note that this is also different from what is implied in the headline...this is not 'the space between TV channels,' it is full channels.)

    • Re:What about FM? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by omahajim ( 723760 )
      >>Doesn't the entire FM range fall between
      >>channels 6 and 7? Why aren't the TV stations
      >>getting pissed off at the FM stations???

      Brilliant observation of the day. Please mod up the parent of this reply.

      Of course, the general public doesn't have a clue about frequency allocations, but that won't stop the misinformation campaign from the large OTA broadcast conglomerates.

      Those big guys probably own many of the FM's in their markets anyways as well, and the FM transmitters are frequently

      • Re:What about FM? (Score:4, Informative)

        by slackerboy ( 73121 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:07AM (#9184406)
        "Brilliant observation of the day. Please mod up the parent of this reply."

        Mod parent down for cluelessness and knee-jerk conpiracy theories.

        As another poster pointed out, there is almost 100 MHz between channels 6 & 7, with the FM broadcast bands occupying about 20MHz of that. By comparison, each TV signal occupies 6MHz. There is little direct intereference because of channel spacings.

        More importantly, one the major concerns about Wi-Fi is probably that the devices will operate under Part 15, where the users are not required to have a license from the FCC. Instead, they'll bitch and complain and not understand that they must not interfere with other licensed services and must accept any intereference they receive.
    • what happened to the plan to move all TV air boroadcasts to UHF? that was the intention as of a few years ago and open VHF for wifi or cell phones or something. i think the idea had something to do with moving analog TV to UHF, and prepare for it to be relatively short term till digital TV broadcasting comes of age.
      TVs in the USA will be required to have digital tuners very soon. i think it is first TVs over 30" or 35" then a year or two or three later all TVs sold in the US have to have digital tuners. the
      • I think the plan to move all TV stations to UHF got killed because of lobbying from broadcasters. There were several issues that were brought up. Rural stations on VHF channels that would not be able to replicate their current coverage on UHF and the increased operating costs (transmitter electricity bill) of switching to UHF for some VHF stations. The last I heard, the station has to return one of their channels to the FCC at the end of the transition to ATSC. The station gets to pick which one is returned
      • What plan are you thinking of? The US DTV plan has always been to move stations out of channels 52-69 and auction that spectrum after the DTV transition.

        Today, halfway through the transition, there are actually fewer empty TV channels because almost every station has an analog and a digital channel.

        ObFAQ: only 10% of americans now depend on over-the-air reception for television.

  • I get interferance anyway (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darthmalt ( 775250 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:09AM (#9183732)
    on ever TV in town unless you are really close to the cable company when you turn to channel 8 (local information) you can see channel 7 as a shadowy background presence.

  • This is bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:11AM (#9183760)

    Now we won't have quality material on TV ... oops nevermind

  • Wardrobe Malfunction (Score:5, Funny)

    by BenBenBen ( 249969 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:11AM (#9183762)
    Won't someone think of the children?

    It's not enough that the liberal media broadcast a *nipple* during a family show, now they have to fill the bits between stations with the internet, which Fox News told me is full of degrading pornography!.

    I for one am angry about this political correctness gone mad, and would like the FCC or DoJ to take some of my rights away in response.

  • Good Move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:11AM (#9183764)
    Commercial broadcasters haven't really done much for the spectrum they were given. IMHO there should be substantial taxes on commercial use of spectrum. Theoretically, it would seem that Wi-Fi could deliver much more content than is now done with the spectrum the broadcasters are using. Perhaps we ought to look at completely eliminating the television spectrum and replacing it with Wi-Fi.
    • While I think you are right regarding spectrum pricing of some sort, it is wrong to hold broadcaster's accountable. The FCC creates the rules for how spectrum can be used.

      DTV is the first example of providing some flexibility in content devliery. You've got 19 Mbps of MPEG-2 transport stream bandwidth in DTV. Some stations deliver multiple standard-definition streams, other deliver a high-quality high-definition stream, and others combine standard and high def in the same bandwidth.

      Some stations even e

  • The chairman should know (Score:5, Funny)

    by Guy Innagorillasuit ( 249136 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:14AM (#9183783) Journal
    Broadcasters argue that this will cause interference on television stations but the FCC chairman says otherwise.

    I'm sure with his broad experience and expertise in the field Chairman Powell should be trusted on this matter. Where do these broadcasters get off questioning the word of a man of such stature in the industry? /sarcasm
    • I know expecting the editors to RTFA is too much to ask, but I'd be nice if the submitters could spare the time. The quote was actually from the FCC's Chief Enginner, not the Chairman:

      Ed Thomas, the FCC's chief engineer, said current technology can avoid interference problems. WiFi can sense when a frequency is being used and scan for another available pocket of spectrum. That technology, Thomas said, can be expanded to the television spectrum to avoid interference.
      • "I know expecting the editors to RTFA is too much to ask"

        No, it's not. That's what an editor's job IS. Print editors (good ones at least) don't just print whatever gets handed to them...they check it first.

    • Scotty [carlsbad.nm.us] be damned! If anyone can change the laws of physics through sheer will-to-power, its Michael Powell [reclaimthemedia.org].
  • Kind of like repeated Slashdot articles:

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/14/2154 247&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=129&tid=137&tid=188&ti d=193&tid=99

    Not exactly the same signal but close. ;-)

    In all seriousness does anybody else see this as an attempt to lock in an approved set of wireless equipment and keep people form building their own wans?

  • Sure but it goes both ways (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TechnoWeeniePas ( 411708 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:15AM (#9183800)
    Sure there might be some leakage...and the channels may get some interfearance...but that would mean that the networking signal would be getting interfearance too. And hence they will move to a "cleaner" frequency to lessen the problem...so if there is a problem its a problem for both...and hence they will work together to avoid such problems.
    • True, but up till this point television broadcasters haven't cared. What do they care if they intefere with others broadcasters they're likely other companies. So long as the FCC doesn't tell them to cut it really doesn't have any negative impact. If they stuck to the original wording, which I'm not sure if they have or not, then there are going to be lots of problems. It seems by the first articles I read about this that the WiFi better not be interfering with the Television broadcasts but they didn't
    • "and hence they will work together to avoid such problems"

      I think you meant to say, and hence they will hire armies of lawyers and litigate each other out of existence (unless they decide to hire armies of soldiers, as seems to be the American way at the moment).

  • I gave up on griping about snow on high cable channels because the cable company did not have the will to do anything about it. So, if I see lines or other interference patterns on broadcast signal, am I supposed to bring this to FCC's attention?

  • What a relief! (Score:5, Funny)

    by YodaToo ( 776221 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:18AM (#9183826)
    I thought my spooky blonde daughter was communicating with poltergeists on channel 17.35. Turns out it was just WiFi.

  • I'd be the first to move over. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ctime ( 755868 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:22AM (#9183894)
    Lower Frequencies = Better reception, wall piercing bandwidth. This is two fold, as your signal is going to simply work "better" for not only you, but john q. hacker sitting outside your building (or say 4-5 stories down inside your building should still get great reception.) Then again, this isn't really being sold as residential grade wireless, but rather transit links to and from customers. This is really where it's going to shine.

    If they do come out with AP's that run on this sub 700mhz spectrum, I'd be the first to buy them and ditch the near-microwave oven freqnency of 2.4ghz. That just seems like we're asking for trouble.
    • And I'll be right behind you in that line. 802.11 is just too high freq/too low power for my needs. I'd prefer to have one AP that can light up my entire house and lawn. 802.11 with consumer-grade equipment can't do that.

      I haven't tried bumping an 802.11 AP up to the 200mW legal limit yet, but that might do the job. But why bother with hacking my AP when I'll soon be able to just go out and buy some ~700MHz hardware.
  • We have your neighbor (you wouldn't do this of course) watching streaming video of Shelly Vixen and her three boyfriends, three girlfriends and a Poland-China sow ghosting in over the Disney channel. Definitely educational television.
  • Since FM Radio is sandwiched into the middle of the VHF stations (between channels 6 and 7, I believe), if you can get Channel 6 at the very bottom of your FM dial, as I can, you might be able to get WiFi screeching as well. Assuming that they place one of these near Channel 6.

  • i'd more concerned (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hyperstation ( 185147 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:28AM (#9183954)
    ...about tv signals interfering with my wireless.

  • As long as it doesn't impinge on Fox News Channel (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reverendG ( 602408 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:29AM (#9183959) Homepage
    As long as the interference from the WiFi doesn't impinge on Rupert Murdoch's broadcasting, what does Michael Powell care? This kid has been in the pocket of the big 3 for his entire time as Chairman of the FCC.

    If there was any doubt that this new regulation would cause problems for the media giants, there's no way it would happen.

  • FCC Chairman (Score:3, Funny)

    by s88 ( 255181 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:33AM (#9184008) Homepage
    I, for one, am willing to accept the opinion of the FCC Chairman (read: PHB) over a detailed technical analysis.

  • I'm sure Hollywood loves this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Neutron ( 3115 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:36AM (#9184043) Homepage Journal
    Anything to further diminish the viability of broadcast TV, with all of its pesky "fair use" and legalized home recording. Of course, once everything is HDTV, and all receivers everywhere have built-in, FCC-mandated DRM, there will be less to worry about.

    [/tinfoil-hat]

  • Who cares? Its only Broadcast TV getting jacked up (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They know good and goddamn well that this will cause interference to broadcast TV. Just another way to force people to purchase cable at its ridiculously high prices, or be similarly raped by the satelite companies.

    Note: The following is a "Any opportunity to rant about cable companies" rant:

    Back in my day, cable only cost $5. Everyone said, "Who would ever PAY for TV? hahah". The cable companies lied about their intentions to raise prices exponentially, until once they locked in monopoly power with 20 an
    • You're whining cuz they make you pay $100/mo ! Right ?

      May I ask do they hire goons to put a gun to your kids to make you pay ???

      If not, you know, there is lot of life away from the tube!! Its been 5 years I stopped wathing TV and no, I don't miss it! That too when in this side of earth Cable costs $5/mo (and yeah... 30+ channels with star movies, HBO and all!!).

      Its because of you idiots who pay $100 for cable and $6000 for a TV set (ok, its a large and thin plasma one... but its AFTER ALL, a "TV" set and

  • Old news is so exciting! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tokachu(k) ( 780007 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:43AM (#9184155) Journal
    All that needs to be said to naysayers of this proposal is: DOCSIS, DOCSIS, DOCSIS (a.k.a. cable modem technology).

    Cable modems don't hurt analog cable television, and they've been using spare television bandwidth for over 5 years.
    • The cable environment is much more controlled than the over-the-air environment.
    • Funny that you mention DOCSIS. Vyyo [vyyo.com] already makes a DOCSIS-compatible high-speed wireless broadband modem that operates in the 700MHz range. This is perfect for the new unlicensed spectrum.
    • Cable modems don't hurt analog cable television, and they've been using spare television bandwidth for over 5 years.

      Cable systems also use adjacent channels for TV signals without problems.

      The issue is that the TV signal is AM, with the carrier near the low end of the 6 MHz channel and the bulk of the lower sideband suppressed. That means a LOWER channel's signal demodulates directly into the passband of the video for the NEXT HIGHER channel. This will cause serious picture degredation unless the inter
  • Don't forget TV signals are mandated to be all HDTV in the near future so this might not be an issue in the future...

    Currently the relatively few people who use over the air TV vs cable/satellite, should face the facts, that if they want "free" TV they should have to suffer if more people want "cheap/free" ranges to broadcast their WiFi on.
  • Broadcasters argue that this will cause interference on television stations but the FCC chairman says otherwise.

    Okay, it must suck somehow... But how?

  • Rural (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick.C ( 626083 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:05AM (#9184380)
    Most "rural" areas in the US can only pick up two or three over-the-air TV stations. If you can only get channels 3, 7 and 10, who cares if someone is using frequencies between 8 and 9 or between 12 and 13 for WiFi?

    As the article says, the WiFi gear would have to be responsible for scanning the spectrum for existing broadcasts (and other WiFi gear) and finding a quiet spot to use.

  • Force TV to go Digital (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khelms ( 772692 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:11AM (#9184434)
    That's one way to get them to move to digital TV faster - crowd them out of the old analog channels.
  • Does anyone know which the FCC regulators are mostly?

    Are they techies and scientists, or are they buerocrats and politicans?

    The FCC seems to make fairly intelligent decisions whereas our Congress seldom does.

  • Hoist by their own petard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:58AM (#9185104) Homepage
    I wonder how many people here who vehemently assert that WiFi should not be allowed to interfere with over-the-air TV broadcasts are the same people who were saying "screw the ham radio geeks; we need Broadband over Power Line"?

    With regard to solving th problem of interference, the argument of "switch to a different amateur band" could be equally applied here as "switch to a different TV channel"...

  • "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots!"

    Yeah, I have a question here that I'm probably going to get flamed for, but I really want to understand exactly how this works. As far as I know, TV signals are one-way communication... So how do I get WiFi over television? I mean, say I'm browsing Slashdot and I click on something, how is that click uploaded? This part just doesn't make sense to me, so if anyone can help clue me in, thanks!

    • Re:stupid question... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tloh ( 451585 )
      I think a little clarification is in order. Do you want to know how television can be broadcast *using* WiFi? or do you want to know how regular television broadcast can *coexist* with WiFi? In both cases, it is a matter of how you use the spectrum. Concerning the first: HDTV is transmited as a digital signal - nothing more than a bitstream. WiFi is a communications protocol - nothing more than rules detailing how to get data from here to there. Unlike existing over-the-air broadcasting, WiFi is very
  • TV over WiFi.

    Take up the entire VHF/UHF band for WiFi.

    Trash radio too.

    Now thats WiFi.

    Now enjoy internet radio and soon to be invented internet TV.

  • Consequences for other countries ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thrill12 ( 711899 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @03:44PM (#9188625) Journal
    I wonder if this decision, when implemented, will have consequences for other countries.
    Even now, my wireless nic allows me to select the place I am in (Europe, Japan, United States), and bases it's channel allowance on that fact.
    If this is implemented, I could be "allowed" (by the software) to select a TV channel which is actually occupied in my country and thus pirate that channel with my Wifi-static...
    Sure, different software could be delivered for different countries. Heck, even different firmwares. But we all know that that doesn't stop anyone from updating their card to another country-version.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close