Television White Space Spectrum Approved For Use By FCC 107
New submitter ptmartin01 writes "The unused spectrum now assigned to television broadcast has been made available for public use by the FCC. This is going to be used for wireless applications (PDF) with implications that it will generate as much investment as the previous Wi-Fi spectrum. It also happens to be the last available spectrum to be exploited."
When you say public... (Score:1)
...I assume what you actually mean is "commercial."
Re:Capitalism, ho! (Score:5, Interesting)
it's also a little bit of BS - there is a tremendous amount of spectrum, not only is there spectrum that is inefficiently used there is also spectrum that is just beginning to become useable due to advances in technology. I hardly believe that white space TV spectrum is the last bastion of wireless communications.....
Re:Capitalism, ho! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a lot like the IPv4 address space.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, they could probably squeeze another 60 Mhz out of the military's spectrum.
My wish list if they do:
The channels need to be 5 Mhz by default, so there would be 11 non-overlapping channels, instead of 3. The bandwidth would be fine for 99% of the people who just get on the Net with their wireless. If someone needs 100 Mbps, they need to not use this new spectrum. How much freaking bandwidth has been wasted getting people 300 Mbps, when most people are going as fast as their DSL goes!
The power needs to be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then use existing tech. 99% of the people only use wireless for surfing the net. Do you not see how much spectrum is doing nothing but giving people less non-overlapping channels?
It's all fine and dandy when you live in the sticks. Go to an apartment and set up a router. Oh, there is nobody on channel one, and everyone else is on 6 and 11...but it seems a couple of idiots set their equipment to channel 3, which interferes with 1 & 6. Who the hell thought that one up. Let's let them think they were gett
Re: (Score:1)
Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass. Far more than 1% of the population lives in rural areas, which are greatly under-served, in regards to "broadband" internet access. I happen to live in such an area, where we have no landline-based "broadband" access.
I use to consume 10GB to 15GB a day, but I now have to keep my usage to 10GB, or less(though I usually go over 10GB). I pay a lot of money in bills, supporting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others, yet no company is willing to provide "broadband"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We were lucky enough to be "grandfathered" in on a truly unlimited 3G plan with AT&T otherwise we'd still be using dialup. They tried to start capping us at 5GB/month until we threatened with lawyers. There's no WiMax, DSL, or cable available here. My options are a T-1 at great expense, overpriced bandwidth-capped satellite access with latency issues, dialup (can only connect at 19.2 do to crappy phone lines) or a cell modem.
What pisses me off is Verizon took tax payer funds to run fiber out to last-
Then start your own company (Score:2)
My street alone has enough potential subscribers to pay any company willing, 10 times over, to run access out here.
Including the company you would start?
Re: (Score:2)
You know 802.11 (what you call WiFi) is intended to be a substitute for ethernet for LOCAL networks right? You know it's used for more than internet access right? You know there's several business uses for it besides facebook too right?
Nobody ever said you'd get 300Mbps Internet access but I use the hell out of that 300Mbps moving large files around my home network between our server, the PC hooked to the TV, our desktops, our laptops, etc.
If you want wireless access straight to the net, why do you have 8
Re: (Score:3)
OMG, eggnog must cause reading comprehension problems or something. If you read what I said, I said we need to squeeze 60 Mhz out of military spectrum and do something similar to 802.11 (wifi), only this time, do it correctly. I never once said anything about cutting off anyone's N routers (even though never pushing them to people who didn't need them would have been the correct thing to do for America).
> but I use the hell out of that 300Mbps moving large files around my home network
For every one of you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you make that the non-default the people who actually need it can still have it and all the Grandmas of the world will still get their pictures without unintentionally wasting local spectrum resources.
Re:Capitalism, ho! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have the FCC's spectrum allocation chart handy, but here's the one for Australia: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/spectrum_plan/arsp-wc.pdf [acma.gov.au]
The only unallocated spectrum is below 9kHz and above 275GHz. Obviously a lot of overlap can occur at VHF and above (if you allow for the odd tropospheric ducting event to cause interference) but TV is the last of the big chunks of spectrum, everything on the chart that isn't broadcasting (orange/red colour) is hacked up into small pieces.
Re: (Score:1)
Found a similar PDF from the US Department of Commerce, but from 2003: Dept. of Commerce: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: PDF: October 2003: US Frequency Allocations: The Radio Spectrum: Chart [doc.gov]
Hope that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully someone can clear this up for me.
Throughout the development of the "white space" spectrum, one thing that has never been clear to me is what it's going to be used for. It keeps getting compared to Wi-Fi, but then you'll have articles like this one that talk about commercial uses.
So which is it? Am I going to be able to drop a router in my house and run my wireless LAN on different frequencies, or is this just going to be another segment of licensed spectrum for selling wireless broadband?
Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? (Score:5, Informative)
I was wondering the same thing. I guess if there was a "killer app" for white space spectrum, we'd have heard about it. This page [allthingsd.com] summarises it so; "Unlicensed spectrum opens the door to all kinds of uses, but the use most commonly talked about is to provide fixed and wireless broadband Internet services. It could also prove a good technology for moving video and other bulky data types around the home."
Re: (Score:1)
unmod....
Re:So Is This For Licensed Or Unlicensed Use? (Score:5, Interesting)
When spectrum is unlicensed, it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial uses. My ISP operates its end-user links on 900 MHz unlicensed spectrum, but its backhauls are on highly-directional 2.4 GHz unlicensed links. That, of course, does not mean that 2.4 GHz cannot also be used for wifi in the home, or that 900 MHz cannot also be used for cordless phones. (In fact, I had to replace one of my cordless phones when I got my Internet connection because the two would interfere badly. If the phone was on the exact same frequency as the Internet, it'd knock the Internet out, but if it was merely adjacent, I would hear modem sounds on the phone.)
Re: (Score:2)
So which is it? Am I going to be able to drop a router in my house and run my wireless LAN on different frequencies, or is this just going to be another segment of licensed spectrum for selling wireless broadband?
You really need to ask this question? Of course its not "for" us, except for us to buy products based on it.
Can I watch these new applications on TV . . . ? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what if I haul that old, dusty analog TV out of the attic, switch it on and tune it to one of these new applications? What will I see? Strange, weird pulsating patterns? Or garbled snow and fuzzy sounds?
Will I be able to tell the difference between that mess, and usual broadcast television content?
Maybe the old TV can be used as a Lava Lamp effect light? It would be interesting to see how the television circuitry tries to interpret these new application coded signals as television signals.
Probably like something SETI is trying to do.
Re:Can I watch these new applications on TV . . . (Score:5, Funny)
I Love Lucy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the higher the data rate, the more like snow it'll look.
For an example of this, listen to a fax transmission (or other phone line modem). The tone dialling at the start is simple enough for a human to learn to decode. Once the connection's made, the two modems start off at very low rates, producing clear, recognizable tones. Then over a few seconds they'll negotiate progressively faster protocols, which sound more and more complex until they're indistinguishable from white noise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So what if I haul that old, dusty analog TV out of the attic, switch it on and tune it to one of these new applications?
I have no idea but you just made me think, instead of recycling all of these old televisions, if somebody has one in great condition and keeps it, it would probably be worth something major decades from now. Or at least it would make an interesting museum piece. Or maybe it would just be old crap. Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the tin whiskers issues are a little overblown.... power supply issues and occasional dead caps can be a problem. Every antique piece of electronics I've resuscitated usually had power supply issues or blown caps near the power supply.... or unseated chips.
Some things surprise you though.... my old Atari 400 fires right up.
Opening up a CRT is only dangerous if you are careless. If you discharge the tube properly, the danger is minimal or non-existent. CRT repair used to be expected of techs. My
Re: (Score:1)
I would expect it to be similar to the channels that are now carrying digital tv channels. Both an unused channel and a channel that is now broadcasting digitally display a snow pattern, but the digital channel is distinct, still snow, but a different enough pattern that if you see both you can vis
Frequency ranges??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frequency ranges??? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_%28radio%29#FCC_decision
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the last (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a lot of individual interest in ham radio. At least the frequencies. Most, if not all, is for private packet networks. Unfortunately, people are finding serious road blocks. I hate to say the "r" word; but, it is being so heavily regulated many have lost interest. The fear is that people will create what they had in Mexico, an encrypted grid network set up by the cartel for communication.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's not the last (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, the real fear is that we might create a cell network with free texting, no dropped calls, operated at cost in the public interest and leave DHS and the major carriers high and dry.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Like the one they had in Mexico.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's not the last (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC could try to take away some of the amateur radio spectrum. Every now again they try to take some away. In so far they have not been successful. It is only a matter of time though. What with the number of new hams decreasing every year.
You might want to check your facts. The number of licensees in the U.S. is actually at an all-time high. It's been climbing since 2007, when the FCC dropped an outdated Morse Code proficiency requirement. See graphs [ah0a.org] and some additional stats [arrl.org] for the details.
Re: (Score:1)
so there are 1.8% more licensees than in 2003. bfd
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC could try to take away some of the amateur radio spectrum. Every now again they try to take some away. In so far they have not been successful. It is only a matter of time though. What with the number of new hams decreasing every year.
Second thing first. There are not less and less Hams every year.
There isn't all that much spectrum to take away form Hams. And much of it is completely useless for digital work anyhow. The LF and HF bands in various neighborhoods from 1.8 to 30 MHz are prone to atmospheric static, and propagation effects that will occasionally cause microwatt signals to propagate around the world. And varying based on time of day or year. Then there are solar events that simply kill the bands. An 11 year sunspot cycle
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
rounding error.
Reading the numbers of operators is a pretty inexact task to be sure. But hardly rounding error level.
At this point, there are around 700K amateur Radio operators. Since we've had the ULS system, the number has dipped as low as 655K.
The number of licensees varies by month to month, as inactive or dead hams are removed from the rolls. The license period is for ten years, so that inactive hams will be removed after 2 years after expiration. That 2 year grace period is a courtesy in case the Ham is actua
This is a godsend (Score:3)
My parents live a mile off the main road at the bottom of a valley. No DSL, cable, 3g/4g, satellite, but with the help of a big honking antenna and a couple of amplifiers, they can pick up solid TV signals.
I'm salivating at the prospect of getting two of these radios and trying to set up a point-to-point bridge between their house and mine. The 145-225 MHz band out to be a lot more amenable to line-of-sight obstacles than 2.4 GHz.
Re: (Score:2)
145-225Mhz right smack in the middle of the HAM bands. These are not the frequencies being talked about in the FA.
regards
p
Re: (Score:1)
Why wait? Intsall one of these at each house, with a relatively clear line of sight between them, align them, and you're all set, and for less than $200:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833997181 [newegg.com]
11-54Mb/s betweern them which should be plenty of B/W for your use case. For distances up to a few miles the internal antenna are fine. Configure both units for ethernet bridge mode and configure MAC filtering to keep others from abusing the bridge. I'll leave the rest to you, as surely you
Unused spectrum? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No - Fox!
I just wish I could watch TV on it (Score:3, Informative)
This DTV shit is for the birds, even with an external antenna and an amplifier the best I can get is 2 seconds of video with unsynced sound before the garbage freezes up for 15 seconds. Thanks Bush, sunk a hundred bucks into your bullshit little boxes and ended up getting fucking cable anyway so I can watch the god damned local news.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have had two of those boxes for free. I let the opportunity slip me by too, but the difference is, I don't care. I want all broadcast television to die, and I want to use at least part of the spectrum freed up to solve the last mile problem, and make the USPS irrelevant once and for all.
Re: (Score:1)
um it was never free ... 2 40$ coupons with 60$ boxes, notice how the boxes jumped up in price when the coupons were announced, and drastically reduced the second the program ended. Then I have 1 more TV, so without even getting into the other bullshit that's 100$ in boxes that don't fucking work. (never-mind those coupons did not get paid for by wishes and unicorn farts)
and lol yea seriously you think this spectrum is going to solve anything on the last mile? its been how many years since its been gone and
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah blah
You forgot to add, "Get off my lawn!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the opposite boat. Unintelligable static on analog gave way to a crystal clear high-definition picture, with a ton of sub-channels, and was directly responsible for my
Re: (Score:2)
I am not taking a geological survey to get OTA tv that was coming in crystal clear when it was analog, I will tell you exactly what the problem is, the signals are not as strong and I live on the outskirts of the city
the plan worked fine, there is yet one more "happy subscriber" to cable service to fix a once non existent problem
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy the tin foil hat.
Re: (Score:2)
what? Ok I am sorry I wont give some random douche my address to "help me" with my DTV, and what other reason could there be? Comcast has been getting a lot of favors from the government the last 10 or so years, and there was no problem with analog TVso they fixed a non existent issue. Here it is nearly 5 years later and the best use they could come up with is "wireless applications" well sorry but no fucking shit, were they going to build a bridge in radio space?
Re: (Score:2)
There were indeed a large number of problems with analog TV, which switching to digital solved. Your blanket denial of this simple fact is what makes you look completely insane.
Most people get better reception and more channels. Maybe you are one of the few exceptions. Maybe you don't know WTF you are doing. Or maybe your tin foil hat is interfering with the reception, I don't know.
where are the unused channels located (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
$275,000? where do you live?
Why aren't there more unused channels? (Score:2)
Elsewhere in Colorado, that system [spectrumbridge.com] shows 4 white spaces for me.
But this strikes me as very odd. I believe there are about 45 TV channels available. Here, I can only think of about six being used. Even rabbitears.info only lists 24 TV channels in use in this market, most of which are repeaters absurdly far away from me. So why aren't there 21-39 white spaces available? Is it a case of interference around other channels?
Why white spaces in the TV bands? (Score:3, Informative)
For the same reason they keep trying to steal the amateur 70cm band (420-450 MHz in the New World, 420-440 MHz elsewhere): the propagation happens to lie in a "sweet spot" of being able to penetrate vegetation, buildings, etc with minimal loss, high power can be generated rather cheaply and easily, and yet there sufficient bandwidth to be able to do high speed data and what-not.
Further up into the microwaves (including mid and high-UHF) you get more bandwidth but attenuation and lower power generation (necessitating directional antennas for most apps) become problematic: witness the differences between the original 800/900 MHz cell bands and the PCS bands at 1700-2100 MHz.
Further down you start needing big antennas to do anything and man-made interference (static and such) starts becoming a real issue. Also, while VHF TV exists where it does for historical reasons, available bandwidth starts getting real scarce as you go down here. Finally, in the low VHF band (FM radio and below) you start seeing ionospheric propagation crop up which can be a nightmare for commercial uses (we hams love it, of course) and will probably be even worse for unlicensed users who will probably be stuck with lower power levels.
My guess is that the interference/big antenna issue will make low VHF (channels 2-6) useless in cities while in rural areas its use will be determined by available channels (a lot of translators are still on VHF even now). Possibly ditto for high VHF (7-13), especially in the number of channels still in use. ATSC has always done better on UHF so in cities where there are a zillion transmitters (half of them low power religious and the like), I can easily see the lack of white spaces being a big problem. In rural areas, the propagation isn't as good on this band, but still far better than 900 MHz+, so we'll see what happens.
One other question I haven't seen answered anywhere: what about Canada and Mexico? If the USA doesn't have some agreement with them on this (and I have yet to see one) none of this may be available in border regions (similar to the Line A and B issues on the 70cm UHF ham band along the US/Canadian border).
I'm glad to hear... (Score:2)
I'm so glad to hear that the first responders now have all the spectrum they need and a cushion for unforseen future needs.
They did take care of that first, right?
Antenna tuning is beyond consumer buyers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TFS, it sucks (Score:5, Informative)
No. It hasn't. It's been made available for commercial use, following the long standing tradition at the FCC of giving the public nothing or next to nothing, and corporations everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oy. Unbelievable the level of confusion and misunderstanding here. Look: The ham bands cannot legally be used for broadcast. Believe me, I know -- I'm a ham, have been for decades, and I currently hold the highest class license as well as having held a first class FCC broadcast engineer license.
What I'm speaking of here is the lack of bands that the PUBLIC, by which I mean everyone/anyone, can use to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. You're just failing to imagine it at the moment. It'd work just fine. For many reasons. Given one prerequisite: spectrum within existing receiver ranges where such a thing can exist. IOW, perhaps 540...700 KHz; 88...95 MHz; etc. Commercial stations can move. Might as well do something with the money they've raked in from their decades-long monopoly, after all.
Re: (Score:2)