2 edits | Unlicensed How is this going to work? If it's unlicensed spectrum, who decides who can use it? My understanding is that we're not talking somebody's home router here.
--
TKJunkMail aliases - ThrowDemsOut, MIllIlITER, MMH, Golf N Sun |
|
| great news maybe one day i can have my smart phone and smart devices connected to this network. forget at&t and Verizon when you can have internet everywhere.... |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices??? 802.11 L for long distance.
Whether this technology can be robust enough and evolve to provide additional competitive options isn't clear, and it will initially be used as a longer-range Wi-Fi alternative. I guess we can look forward to a new WiFi draft spec coming out in a year or 2 that will add the new longer distance WiFi to all the smartphones; iPads; laptops; etc.
But 802.11n now has all kinds of interference issues in apartment complexes and townhouse areas as neighbors step all over each other. I can imagine how an unlicensed 802.11L(for long distance WiFi  ) spec with its ability to go longer distances and more easily penetrate walls will create even more interference problems. |
|
| I believe 802.11af is it? |
|
|
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | Thanks for tip on the name.
Did a search on 802.11af and came up with this news release from today:
»www.prnewswire.com/news-releases···749.html
"We share the FCC's enthusiasm about the potential use of TV white spaces for Wi-Fi," said Wi-Fi Alliance CEO Edgar Figueroa. "The new FCC rules will foster innovation that benefits end users, while continuing to promote co-existence among all users of the spectrum."
The Wi-Fi Alliance recently initiated an industry effort to create a certification program for Wi-Fi devices operating in the TV white spaces. This program will draw on the emerging IEEE 802.11af standard.
Operation in television white spaces spectrum will enable Wi-Fi signals to travel up to three times farther and better penetrate obstructions such as walls and physical obstructions. New applications will be able to take advantage of this greatly improved range for Wi-Fi, to build large outdoor networks and extend coverage in hospitals, homes, corporate environments and more. I hope they can set aside a LOT of channels for this or there is going to be a ton of interference issues as I mentioned in 1st post. |
|
 GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | Where are the crazies? OMG EMF!!!! |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Linklist
Re: 802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices??? Here is a powerpoint presentation that lays out what plans they already have for channels:
»www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w···BObZeTQg |
|
| lmao lol crazies and emf lmao - we will be ok in the end result... |
|
 mr seanProfessional InfidelPremium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1
1 edit | WTF?!? said by article :
In his own statement (pdf), Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell insisted the availability of white spaces technology "provides consumers a competitive alternative to existing broadband providers," and "an additional check against potential anti-competitive mischief." McDowell took things one step further in a speech, insisting the FCC could now take network neutrality protections and competition off their to do list. And...
said by McDowell's pdf statement :
Our action thus helps to bring more broadband to consumers as quickly as innovation, rather than the
government, will allow. Realizing that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box still does not allow me to wrap my head around these comments.
How can there be a competitive alternative when the delivery technology is not tested, let alone priced?
If said service is not in place, and priced, how can it prevent "anti-competitive mischief."?
Bring more broadband to consumers?
I can only imagine his statement as some Bizarro World validation of his consistent anti-regulatory rhetoric... or simply the result of over-medication.
--
How you can make the world a Better Place |
|
 mix
join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI | Network neutrality off todo list? WTF does the commissioner mean by they no longer have to address network neutrality and competition? |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | FUBAR Yes in more fringe areas where OTA broadcast won't be listed because their signals don't supposedly exist some morons will undoubtly use a non-vacant channel for thier white space internet service and screw OTA TV for everyone in the area. Interference complaints will either be ignored by the FCC or take years to resolve.
There is no diubt that the FCC is determined to make sure everyone pays for TV without "officially" killing off OTA.
Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
2 edits | Agree. The database will lag the real world. How do you access a database, without activating the modem to update the database? Unlicensed TVWS devices will be causing interference. They will be mobile, which means no way to triangulate on interference causing devices. No point of contact. No accountability. This is just going to be the 2.4GHz spectrum, with all its problems, on a 10 times larger slice of spectrum. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
2 edits | reply to BF69
Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference.
Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff.
However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to BF69
said by BF69:Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways? This white space nonsense will die. As I suggest a few days ago, this whole white space thing is a waste of time and only serves to cause issues for you "fringers" in the short term and become pointless in the longer term as the spectrum is sold off for real wireless network access. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to Jim Kirk
Re: Unlicensed said by Jim Kirk:My understanding is that we're not talking somebody's home router here. Yes, we are.
How is this going to work? The rules are all at: »www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily···74A1.pdf |
|
| reply to davidhoffman
Re: FUBAR Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability.
Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory.
Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential. |
|
| reply to PDXPLT
Re: Unlicensed 88 pages?!?!
The FCC should summarize it in a one or two page document for the layman to understand, like they have done with other R&Os. |
|
| reply to cornelius785
Re: FUBAR said by cornelius785:Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability. Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory. Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential. Try again. The FCC's best simulations can never reflect the real world.
Longley-Rice maps are an approximation at best. |
|
1 edit | I suppose... Those 88 pages worth of rules have no real meaning/use for us consumers at the moment? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to PDXPLT
Re: FUBAR said by PDXPLT:Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference. Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff. However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past. yes there are fringe areas, I live in one. I know what I can and can't get. I know quite bit on this topic. There are some channels I can only get in at night. So these channel won't show up in any database. Ok so now some idiot and his whitespace devices can screw me getting that station in at all. |
|
