Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | This is not practical! For most of this spectrum, this is not practical at all. Here's why:
The usage of this spectrum is not 'static'; instead it changes. New TV stations sign on, old ones move transmitter sites and channels, LPTV stations are always moving around, etc. Also, these channels are shared with itinerant users such as wireless microphones and medical instrumentation.
With all this changing all the time, adding this mishugas would only complicate things further. Besides, MORE of this spectrum can be used via unlicensed devices. Look at the B and G wireless bands for example. There are MILLIONS of devices that share this small patch of spectrum successfully. Would it make more sense to have but a few dozen licensed users here per city using this spectrum?
The answer is NO! |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by qworster:Look at the B and G wireless bands for example. There are MILLIONS of devices that share this small patch of spectrum successfully. Because they are all very low power and have a useful range measured in feet, not miles. And they are not sharing the band with some other established, distant service either.
I have no problem with Part 15 devices (very limited power, may not interfere) using the TV bands, but when you start trying to make broadband links over several miles or more there's going to be trouble. There aren't enough channels for everyone in a large area, for just the first thing. WiFi does OK with its few channels because of its limited range.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to qworster
said by qworster:For most of this spectrum, this is not practical at all. Here's why: The usage of this spectrum is not 'static'; instead it changes. New TV stations sign on, old ones move transmitter sites and channels, LPTV stations are always moving around, etc. Also, these channels are shared with itinerant users such as wireless microphones and medical instrumentation. Agreed the proponents of unlicensed white spaces act like LPTV doesn't exist and this would be the death knell for many stations. |
|
| reply to qworster
sorry to burst your bubble, but there are radios being researched that will hunt for the whitespace and use it intelligently. example: if the 'whitespace' radio sees a tv station active, don't transmit in that block frequency range at the moment.
my guess (hope even) is that we won't see any radio using the 'whitespace' for a couple years since well defined standards (i think there is something in the works though...) are there yet, the fcc hasn't really taken a firm stance, but more importantly, there is still plenty of research and testing to do. |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| said by cornelius785:sorry to burst your bubble, but there are radios being researched that will hunt for the whitespace and use it intelligently. example: if the 'whitespace' radio sees a tv station active, don't transmit in that block frequency range at the moment. my guess (hope even) is that we won't see any radio using the 'whitespace' for a couple years since well defined standards (i think there is something in the works though...) are there yet, the fcc hasn't really taken a firm stance, but more importantly, there is still plenty of research and testing to do. Oh, don't get me wrong, I support the concept...BUT keep it unlicensed. I don't want the 'big guys' licensing away the only REAL spectrum left that the public can actually USE!
Look at it this way...If you license it, technically it isn't "white space" any more, is it? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to qworster
said by qworster:With all this changing all the time, adding this mishugas would only complicate things further. Besides, MORE of this spectrum can be used via unlicensed devices. Look at the B and G wireless bands for example. There are MILLIONS of devices that share this small patch of spectrum successfully. They don't share it successfully. Ever been in a park overlooked by 10s of apartment towers, where there are 800 APs visible according to netstumbler, and the free park wifi is unconnectable except with a yagi. The higher the density, the slower it becomes for everyone, then people get 802.11N and directional antennas and tx power hacks and add APs and WDS and wireless bridges that uses even more resources to overcome the congestion making everything worse. 2.4 is ruined. |
|
