Re: 700 MHz? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17076514 en Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:29:51 EDT Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:29:51 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17081350 PDXPLT : I think you're getting confused by the title of this story. It has nothing to do with 700 MHz spectrum. These channels (52-62) are being re-assigned to non-TV use, and being auctioned off, and will not be available to the devices covered by this Order.

This Order covers operation on TV channels 5-13, 21-36, & 38-51. That's 234 MHz worth of spectrum (OK, not quite 300). But that's alot of very good spectrum, including some in the Low-VHF region. This might increase in the future once the FCC feels that operation on 2-4 won't interfere with VCR's and STB's, and operation on 14-20 won't interfere with public safety comm systems.

quote:
Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment.


No, you're missing the point. These devices will only get to use channels that the TV folks aren't using. There are separation, adjacent-channel, and "taboo" channel rules that the FCC uses for keeping 1 MW TV stations apart, that don't need to apply when you are talking about 1-10 watt WISP base stations.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17081350 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:43:36 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17079869 rf_engineer :
said by RayW See Profile :

Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment.
I haven't studied the FCC docs, but I don't think they'll lose equipment investments as they will probably continue on their issued frequencies. The broadcasting industry could make a stink over losing open frequencies for new licensees, though.

One thing that makes this a good rural solution at first glance I think is that you have less UHF TV stations in more rural areas, so there would be more whitespace to work with. Here in NE PA, there's only five or six big stations. I haven't scanned the UHF TV band in ages as I'm on cable, but there's probably several little LPTV stations to steer around in some communities. That may be an issue.

I wonder why they don't open up the VHF TV channels as well. Here in Eastern PA, AFAIK only stations in Philly and NYC are on VHF TV channels, with one exception being one in Lancaster. Unless population density/distrubution really changes here in the East, is there anyone lining up investments for building new TV stations when the four big networks have stations covering everywhere and there's cable and satellite everywhere? I dunno...

Update: I see the FCC is asking for comments about VHF channels...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17079869 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:02:15 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17079810 rf_engineer :
said by RayW See Profile :

Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. But then I only operate and repair radios, not make spectrum policy.
Take a modest four 6 MHz TV channels and a 5 Mb/s spectral density and you've a raw 120 Mbs channel. With residential service you can do some pretty amazing oversubscription ratios so 120 Mbs isn't shabby. Let them run 10 watts directional on the subscriber units and say 100 watts omnidirectional on the base and you've got a killer rural solution that would bang through trees and have a pretty large radius. Create a good frequency reuse plan and take a cellular build approach and you have a national solution. Mix in mesh technology for giggles...ooooooooohhhh weeeeeee! :-)

I'd pony up my own money to create a business doing a rural WISP using this spectrum in places I wouldn't even think of doing 2.4 or 5.8. Unfortunately, probably all the spectrum will be auctioned to the big boys :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17079810 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:47:32 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17078287 RayW :
said by PDXPLT See Profile :

said by RayW See Profile :

Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users.
yes there is, like about 300 MHz worth.
Unmm.. It is interesting that even though the channel/frequency lists show freqs as being fairly contiguous from ch 14 at 470-476 Mhz through ch 83 at 884-890 Mhz, in reality the actual allocations are not all those channels. In the 700 MHz area only 698-764 (ch 52-62) and 776-794 (ch 65-67) are allocated to broadcast according to the spectrum usage chat I have (dated 2003 or see »www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf), and they share that with other mobile and fixed services.

Now the area from 512-608 (ch 21-36) and 614-698 (ch 38-51) is TV broadcasting only. So you have almost 200 MHz that you tell the TV folks they can't use anymore and to lose their equipment investment.

said by PDXPLT See Profile :

This is a huge deal for rural broadband. It could be the big break that BPL was never going to be. In many rural areas, WISPs just don't cut it at 2.4 and GHz - trees and hills kill connectivity. 900 MHz had good propagation, but there's only a tiny sliver available there.

900 is jammed packed anyway. But not all the GHz spectrum is absorbed/reflected by trees, have to look at the absorption patterns over the range of frequencies and you see a lot of peaks and valleys (of course, the valleys are probably all claimed). Anyway, you are more worried about hills and dales in many places, and for that you are looking at low VHF and HF, or tall antennas and lots of cells on the higher ground (500-700 MHz is still very line of sight).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17078287 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:58:40 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077213 anon :
quote:
Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. But then I only operate and repair radios, not make spectrum policy.


An analog TV channel is six MHz wide, isn't it?

Motorola Canopy puts 3 channels between 902 and 928 MHz which are each capable of 3.4x1.2 asymetric. That would be 2.3x2.3 symetric. These channels are each the width of a single TV channel.

I should also say that there are more sophisticated modulation schemes.

It isn't a lot of spectrum but they also suggest that "smart" radios that can avoid channels which are in use will be provided.

We deliver using 900 MHz ISM. 700 will not give us a significantly enhanced capability because there is not that much difference between absorbtion at 700 and at 900; however, it is a move in the right direction.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077213 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:47:16 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077739 PDXPLT :
said by RayW See Profile :

Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users.
yes there is, like about 300 MHz worth.

Only thibg is, now it is called "TV channels", and unavailable for use, even though few people get their TV exclusively over the air anymore, there are unused channels in most locations, and in rural areas (where new broadband sources are needed the most), almost all that spectrum is unused.

This is a huge deal for rural broadband. It could be the big break that BPL was never going to be. In many rural areas, WISPs just don't cut it at 2.4 and GHz - trees and hills kill connectivity. 900 MHz had good propagation, but there's only a tiny sliver available there. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077739 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:46:51 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077409 jervin123 : The way I feel about that in large city is higher frequency = More capacity per mile or Square mile. If I was an RF engineer in a place like NYC I would choose 1900 over 850 for capacity sakes. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17077409 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:02:13 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076774 RayW :
said by griminal See Profile :

Better penetration with that frequency. Larger coverage areas for a single POP.
We have been getting some good building penetration in the GHz range with smaller antennas, better bandwidth, less power. But penetration and range are not an issue (note: FIXED providers are referenced in the article, not mobile), you can install outside antennas in most areas and you would probably want a directional antennas of some sort to maximize your ability to make smaller cells that do not waste your bandwidth on a few users over a large area.

Problem is, most of the spectrum is more or less taken/divvied up/spoken for up through 300 GHz even though there are some likely looking spots above 100 GHz (good luck getting cheap equipment though). And considering the way they 'sell' the spectrum, will it even be cost effective?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076774 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:25:16 EDT Re: 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076514 griminal : Better penetration with that frequency. Larger coverage areas for a single POP.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076514 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:45:15 EDT 700 MHz? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076307 RayW : Not much bandwidth there for a nice high speed internet with multiple users. But then I only operate and repair radios, not make spectrum policy.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17076307 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:18:54 EDT