FCC Will Test Internet Over TV Airwaves, Again

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.'"

Detection should be easy

[crow]

TV broadcasts use a fairly wide frequency band. Just define one small part that is restricted to just TV, and make sure there is no signal on that portion, then use the rest. Of course, you have to recheck periodically, as there may still be some stations that go off the air at night, and you would need to stop using that frequency when they come back on.

Detection is a nightmare

[SlappyBastard]

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:Detection should be easy

[Shrubbman]

Well the last time I checked most stations that 'go off the air' really don't, they just switch from actual programming to some really annoying tone squealing over a test pattern.

Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow

[SlappyBastard]

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.

Re:What, no revenue?

[zoltamatron]

Not exactly....The FCC is about to auction off all the analog broadcast TV bandwidth when all stations go digital in early 2009. The bandwidth avoidance that these internet boxes will have to do will be greatly reduced when all the analog TV is gone.

Re:then the FCC would decide everything

[calebt3]

Clearwire isn't bound by those laws. This broadcasting will be happening on the same frequencies as TV, but it won't be in a format a TV can make sense of.

Re:Who cares about tv

[aywwts4]

You obviously don't have an HD TV.
The best quality HD is all OTA

Re:Try you local cellular providers

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

Satellite internet has horrible terms of service - and serious latency issues. Cellular providers cover many under-server rural areas now - I was pleased to learn of the option. It doesn't have the inhibitive installation cost of satellite service either. I'm connecting with speed between 700 and 1000kbps - with downloads speeds around 120kbps/upload speeds around 20kbps. The service is 29.99 unlimited (doesn't count against airtime minutes/no caps) using a tethered phone or 59.99 per month unlimited using a wireless USB modem. It's performs well - I've experienced no outages in over a month of use. Anyone more knowledgeable - the cellular broadband is a type of radio service? Is this something more like a "mesh" network?

Re:Rural internet is sort of a joke anyhow

[Kaeles]

Not true, The ISP I work for offers a wireless connection to last mile customers.

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.

Re:Who cares about tv

[drsquare]

The best quality HD is all OTA

There's HD over the air? Oh wait, I live in the UK, where we're lucky to get any signal at all without paying £500 a year to Murdoch...

Re:Mmm.. BBS over HAM

[jimrob]

As I recall there was a lot of opposition to BPL because it interferes with the HAM radio spectrum.

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 (radiations from unlicensed transmitters) to allow BPL to operate.

Here's a page at the ARRL about BPL: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/ [arrl.org]

Here's a couple YouTube videos demonstrating the type of RF garbage these things emit all over the RF spectrum:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HDSQJ8zOnhQ [youtube.com]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pdcY0Eetvsw [youtube.com]