Slashdot Log In
FCC Will Test Internet Over TV Airwaves, Again
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jan 19, 2008 02:26 PM
from the automagic-for-the-people dept.
from the automagic-for-the-people dept.
Weather Storm writes "According to MSNBC.com, the FCC will try again to test prototypes on Jan. 24 for transmitting high-speed Internet service over unused television airwaves. The devices were developed by Microsoft and Motorola, among other corporate partners, and will be tested in laboratory and real-world conditions for three months. 'Last year, a high-technology coalition — which included Microsoft, Google Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Intel Corp. among others — submitted prototypes they said could transmit broadband Internet service over unlicensed and unused TV spectrum, known as "white spaces." Television broadcasters and the wireless microphone industry say such devices could interfere with programming. The Initial prototype testing failed last July because the devices did not reliably detect and avoid TV programming signals and could have caused interference. If the tests are successful this time and the devices are approved, the coalition plans to introduce commercial devices for sale after the digital television transition in February 2009.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: TV Airwaves To Deliver Internet? 115 comments
roscoetoon directs our attention to a proposal from an odd assortment of tech companies — Google, Microsoft, H-P, Intel, and others — to reuse TV wavelengths to deliver first-mile connectivity. The Washington Post article is subtitled "Cable, Phone Companies Watch Warily." As well they might. One of the big content companies that the incumbent duopolists propose to soak by dismantling network neutrality, in company with some powerful allies, is striking back at the heart of their business.
This discussion has been archived.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.
During peak times (Score:3, Funny)
Re:During peak times (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Detection should be easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Detection should be easy (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Detection should be easy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You are lucky. They don't do that where I live. They just play "infomercials" during the time they would normally be off air.
Re: (Score:2)
Detection is a nightmare (Score:5, Informative)
Can you even imagine handling TV signal detection in an are like the Northeast Corridor? Anywhere from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME there are so friggin many channels that when you include out-of-DMA channels there simply is no real white space.
Understand that a channel in the eastern US can be reasonably expected to be detectable up to 100 miles away. For example, I live in central Pennsylvania, and even without atmospheric effects with a decent antenna I can get channels from eastern Ohio.
Point being that the device is going to pick up a lot of channels. Also, since it is presumed to be mobile, that device will have to shift channels.
Channel-shifting is where the real nightmare occurs, especially in cities. With path interference, you have total signal dead zones that are three feet away from strong signal. The device could pick a channel, celebrate and start transmitting right into a zone where there would be perfect TV reception and never be able to detect it because of a dead zone.
Trying to avoid this sort of interference in a practical application is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
What, no revenue? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mmm.. BBS over HAM (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember something a fear years ago about the switch to HDTV somehow opening up a range frequencies on the FM dial, and the FCC talking about maybe loosening restrictions on licensing for broadcast in the FM spectrum. I haven't re-heard any of that since.
I also remember, while I was studying the use of power lines as FM transmitters (apparently the signal is periodically flattened, though, by the transformers), the FCC mentioning something about using the power lines to double as internet. This was just after the DSL market leveled off, I remember. Anyways, there was a lot of talk about how to get that done, and special switches to go around transformers, or something. I haven't re-heard any of that, either.
I never liked DSL, btw. It seemed like the public was being duped into agreeing that they have no business using modems that fast without paying the phone companies for compensation. That's my impression based on the way the phone companies handled 14.4s and 28.8s. With 14.4s they started saying "you need to tell us if you are using your phone line for data communications; there's an extra fee." They tried to justify that by saying the fee paid for keeping the line more free of noise, which simply wasn't true. I remember a number of SysOps actually letting the phone companies know they were running BBSs off their low-calling-plan phone lines: they still had just as many checksum errors as they ever did, usually because they lived in the rural areas. Then when 28.8s came out, the phone companies started it all over again, except this time their gripe was that the higher throughput was a drain on the company's resources and they needed proper compensation, and threatened that if they found anybody was using their phone line for data without telling them, they would automatically flip you into the higher-paying mode. My impression then was that enough businesses and day-traders had told the company they were using their lines for data and ponied up the extra charge, but found that their signal wasn't any less noisy than usual, and got pissed and complained. Anyways, then DSL came out, and it was the same thing all over again, except that this time the phone companies had the jump on the technology and the right to use it on their lines. They were especially tight-fisted with who's allowed to so much as own a DSL modem, or if they couldn't manage to monopolize that market they were working out exchanges that required the company's leased and serialed modems. I have a question about that; when everybody's onto coaxial and the phone lines aren't being used for data any more, what will all of the "extra bandwidth" there be used for? Not voice: too many people are using cellphones for even their most casual home use, it's just more practical. What good will the phone lines be to us once they aren't getting used?
About the TV band again. I started reading up on it and learned that Japan had gone digital TV quite some time ago, but was still using the same airspace; they just managed to use compression to fit around two digital channels into the same bandwidth as one of our analogues. Why didn't America ever go into that same system, given how much Americans love both television and varieties? It seemed obvious to me, some time later, that twice as many channels are twice as hard to corner and monopolise. Some may say that deals couldn't be worked out so that manufacturers believed Americans would go out and buy replacement sets; but I still say any deal with a lucrative outcome eventually gets made by somebody, and it was simply obviously more lucrative to keep things tight-gripped rather than allow the market to be widened. We still have our "Big 3" today even though things have changed oh-so-much; when the hell are those disinfo mouthpieces going to fail and just go away?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to post on what you did, so let me paraphrase you, maybe that mod will change - and karma aside, you make good points, indirectly addressing other comments. So, here goes:
TV is mandated to go all-digital soon. All the broadcasters in my market already have. So they're broadcasting VHF TV and UHF DTV (with and without HD variants).
So what happens to all that VHF and those crowded Eastern corridors when the mandate takes effect? I should research befo
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing inherent to HDTV... It's just that broadcasters are now abandoning VHF-low (CH2-7) en-masse, and CH6 happens to cover the lower end of the FM spectrum. CH5 was just below the FM range, so it could potentially be extended (downward) as well. I really don't expect either...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Acutally, it interferes with the entire radio spectrum. When the plan was first announced, the military was one of the most vocal opponents of the plan. I don't know if they still are or not, as I haven't heard much about their opinion lately.
The ARRL, a sorta-NRA of ham radio, has recently filed a case with a federal court over BPL. The gripe is that the FCC relaxed their rules regarding Part 15 emissions
Makes Perfect Sense (Score:4, Funny)
I think my head hurts. But I'm pretty sure we invented perpetual motion somewhere in there.
then the FCC would decide everything (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that they would require special authority to regulate the internet in t
How much power is needed? (Score:2)
But over-the-air TV is one way! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like TiVo. Proven model.
"cognitive radio" is the magic term (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in this field for one of the corporations involved in this work with the FCC, and am involved in cognitve radio for TVWS work. If you do a search of the internet using the phrase "cognitive radio" you will get a better idea for how the systems will work. There will be lots of small access points (initial generations of the systems will be about the size of a cigar box). Mobile stations (endpoints such as phones) will function in one of two modes, either tethered or in peer-to-peer.
The trick to
Channels 2-6 (Score:2)
Your cell phone works, right (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it will provide some Internet service where there isn't any now.
But yeah
Re:Mostly benefits rural areas (Score:5, Funny)
But will they run Hurd?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of companies in rural areas won't bother running what really amounts to the last mile of lines needed for DSL and cable. The reason is simple -- they will never recover the cost of running the line.
Presently, asynchronous satellite service is the only rural high speed internet available.
A ground-based synchronous wireless system circumvents some of that trouble, but the TV signals are sitting in the only bandwidth useful for reaching down into valleys. The truth is, VHF channels 7 and 8 are the plum spots. They have great range. They are at a low enough freqeuncy that they curve with the shape of the earth, while being high enough that they don't just suck in nearby electrical interference.
TV sits in the coveted spot.
Parent
Re:Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Funny)
Over here (in "Little Britain") a large 'rural area' probably equates to a small city park in N. America - so net accessibility in remote regions is not such a big issue: we simly don't tell them the internet exists.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever looked at the TV reception issues in an area like Alaska? That's some fun.
There are parts of the rural mountainous US where you have to use a 10' satellite dish to get anything, and that's from local channels that are rebroadcast off of satellite. There's an old joke that the state bird of West Virginia is the C-band satellite dish.
Re:Try you local cellular providers (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cellular telephones use digital radio signals divided into "channels". One channel gets you a cellular-quality digital voice signal. Cellular broadband is just transmitting IP over 2 or 4 of those same channels.
Re:Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
Towns of 300 - 400 people is what we mostly aim at, and We offer decent speeds at least.
Anyways, I used to work for a satellite based ISP, and it just doesn't cut it quite the same.
I know we can do a 20 mile link with 20mbps throughput and recover the cost within 6 months if we have 20 customers.
The big companies aren't even worried about the customers or trying to recover money, they just don't care to take ANY time to spread broadband to rural areas. Its too much of a pain for them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon is doing nothing of the like in western PA, nor is Comcast. Them and a few Atlantic Broadband customers represent the whole target.
Only only one company, Alltel, is running any decent rural service.
When I moved into the new house, part of picking the house was making sure I had at least DSL.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The economics of wireless telecom are so much more favorable that developing nations without an established telecom infrastructure are skipping landlines entirely, and installing cell towers all over the place instead.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the exact situation my parents (and thus me, when I visit them) are in. They are currently on dial-up, with an average connection speed of around 26 kbps for $10/mo. That is abysmally slow, but satellite access is significantly more expensive. I've heard rumors of long-range wireless becoming available in their area, but again, the price is steep. DSL and cable are not available; they've lived there for 11 years, and it doesn't look as if the situation is going to change.
On the other hand, with a p
Re: (Score:2)
The TV channels available depends on a lot of factors. In the right spot here in western PA you can pick up channels from five markets. I can easily get three markets.
The wireless service would be a huge leap forward for internet service. Also, I suspect that Google would like to liberate itself from the entire net neutrality issue.
But, the TV spectrum is a bad place to have this fight. It's hard to pick up signals in some areas, and it will be even harder for devices to figure out that they're causin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you priced out just fixing the problem by buying a real connection?
T1 lines are damn cheap now - I frequently see prices around $400/month. Optical lines start in the low thousands. All it would take is a couple neighbors and setting up a WiFi or even DSL co-op becomes competitive with what you'd expect DSL/Cable to cost.
Now, that may not be the right answer for getting internet access occasionally at your parents house - but it absolutely is for anyone personally lives somewhere where the telcos won
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares about tv (Score:4, Informative)
The best quality HD is all OTA
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.digitalhome.ca/hdtv/idx/0/426/article/Canadian_OTA_HD_Channel_Lineup.html
You can see not many channels in Canada broadcast OTA HDTV and outside of those large cities you'd probably not have much luck picking up any good signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, correct. (looks outside at polar bears).
We get "the channel" and "the other channel" and I have a 75' antenna.
The both have hockey, which I loathe, nearly all the time.
Re: (Score:2)