Slashdot Log In
FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Oct 12, 2008 07:31 AM
from the just-use-a-contrasting-radio-wave dept.
from the just-use-a-contrasting-radio-wave dept.
After the FCC's tests mentioned early last month, andy1307 submits word of the FCC's report (released Friday), writing that "the major telcos disagree with the FCC's report that concluded that using white spaces to provide free wireless internet 'would not cause major interference with other services. ... The FCC concluded that sufficient technical protections would prevent major problems.' FCC chairman Kevin Martin's proposal is to auction off the spectrum, with some rules attached. 'Some of the spectrum would be used for free Internet service, which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: FCC Aims To End Debate With Wireless Tests 121 comments
narramissic writes "Engineers from T-Mobile, AT&T, M2Z Networks, Nokia, Metro PCS, CTIA and XM Sirius have convened at a Boeing facility in Seattle this week to watch as the FCC performs tests it hopes will quiet debate over a proposed spectrum auction. At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum, a move the wireless industry contends will lead to interference for 3G phone users. The FCC is conducting some of the same tests that T-Mobile, one of the more vocal opponents of the FCC plan, has already done plus some additional tests, focusing on interference between handsets running on the different frequencies. Some of the tests involve using handsets connected to WiMax or UMTS networks running on spectrum the commercial providers would use, and then issuing signals using the proposed new service and spectrum, to determine at what signal strength the proposed service causes the WiMax or UMTS call to drop."
This discussion has been archived.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.
There's even a programming language for this (Score:2, Funny)
Re:There's even a programming language for this (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
It doesn't add up (Score:2)
They want to SELL spectrum that'd be used for "free" service? That doesn't make sense.
It's also questionable just what they consider "not a major source of interferrence".
Some people may go to considerable trouble to pick up weak DTV signals. Signals that are weak could not be easily detected by networking gear that didn't have a large antenna attached.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is well known for ignoring community input regarding such things as media consolidation. Just when you think think current admin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Oh, wait a minute...
US of China? (Score:5, Insightful)
If kids want to find the content, they will find it with or without filters. I find that these filters are more often abused for control rather than used appropriately. Even when used in the intended manner, they are usually more annoying than helpful.
Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what are the appropriate uses of filters?
I assert that there are none. For an adult, the filter is your decision to look or not look at particular resources, and to turn a blind eye when something offends.
For children, the filters belong on the local computer administered by the parent if at all, according to the parents wishes.
Oh, and what the hell does "US of China" mean? I think you were looking for "The democratic people's republic of America".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was referring to the Gov't content filters in China.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe that filters imposed by the government is abridging freedom of speech and the press and so do most other people. Unfortunately it seems like the government is as censor happy as China is.
Re:US of China? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's much easier, and more beneficial to the public, to have parents install content filters on their children's internet devices than to censor internet access.
firstly, unlike TV/radio the government cannot regulate internet content. web sites don't have to register with the FCC or buy a broadcasting license. thousands of new pages and sites are added to the web each day. there's just no way for the FCC to keep track of all adult content. the only way to ensure children are completely cordoned off from such content is with a whitelist, and putting a whitelist on public internet access would destroy its usefulness and has great potential for abuse (see the AOL censorship controversy).
with TV & Radio, there's no easy way for parents to install content filtering software on them (at least not until the V-Chip came out for TV), so it made some sense for the FCC to censor the airwaves. this is not the situation with internet content.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's euphemistic. Actually there are only four countries in the world that don't claim to be democratic.
Filters? Whose filters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All you [expletive deleted] are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the [expletive deleted]! We're gonna [expletive deleted] your mothers while you watch and cry like little [expletive deleted]! Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax [expletive deleted] who are making that movie, we're gonna make 'em eat our [expletive deleted], then [expletive deleted] out our [expletive deleted], then eat their [expletive deleted] which is made up of our [expletive deleted] that we made 'em eat! Then all you [exp
This is AWS, not White Spaces (Score:2, Informative)
The FCC is proposing that the winner of a spectrum auction in the 2155 to 2180 MHz band is obliged to use it partly to offer free broadband access.
White Spaces is in the Digital TV broadcast bands, below 700 MHz.
By inappropriate for children.. (Score:2)
..they're referring to religious screed, spam, violence, war propaganda and fox "news," right?
Sex? Oh.
What content? Whose children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which content? Whose children? The government thinks it has the right, or the knowledge, to decide for ME what MY children should be able to access?
I have said this before, but I think it's all just a scam to get people used to censorship.
Government needs to keep its goddamned hands off of the censorship button. The 'censored net' is a concept proposed by fools. For fools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
"Do you like the rating system for movies in the US and a lot of the world?"
No, I did not and I do not. After many years of nonsense ratings with no discernible rationale behind them, now they have more "fine-grained" ratings for things like "sexual dialogue" and the depiction of people smoking cigarettes. So... it has gone from a coarse system with no rationale to a fine-grained system that rates based on things that are just plain stupid. I am not im
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC's job has, is and always will be to censor content that is broadcast in the US. It is the central and primary purpose of the organization.
Re:FCC's job is to manage spectrum, not preach! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is example of how the FCC sometimes starts to follow a good idea, but then screws it up in an absurd way.
I see absolutely no good reason for certain frequencies to have content filters for children against the user's wishes
Internet access is an individual / personal use service, not a broadcast service, and other users of the wireless service are not exposed to content viewed or accessed by one user.
Whether or not content filters are applied should be entirely up to the user.
I predict this "fi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was the government responsibility to provide internet and free internet was a right of yours
The government is not providing the internet. And ultimately this service might replace your typical home internet connection, for most people.
They are doing the equivalent of a city/state government allowing cable companies to run cables through public property.
And requiring the land owners (rightholders according to the deeds that the government has issued), to allow cable lines to cross their property
Re: (Score:2)
what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.
that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather