 RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | 700 MHz? 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. | |
|  | 
griminal
Finally.
join:2001-06-25
Bangor, MI | Re: 700 MHz? Better penetration with that frequency. Larger coverage areas for a single POP. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: 700 MHz? said by griminal  :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. | |
| | | jervin123
join:2005-04-14
Philadelphia, PA | 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. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by RayW :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. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: 700 MHz? said by PDXPLT :said by RayW :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 :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. | |
| | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
October 13th, @09:33AM
| Re: 700 MHz? said by RayW :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... | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 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. | |
| | 
AnonDOG
@verizon.net
| 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. | |
| | | ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·AT&T Southeast
| But at what price? If a carrier spends billions to get the spectrum, they have to pass along that cost to someone in the broadband food chain. I don't think the holes they speak of are large enough to get a payback to cover what they spent.
900Mhz is already in the public domain, why can't the "holes" be filled with that instead??
If they are serious in getting a better reach in unserved areas, leave it unlicensed and let the innovators take care of the rest. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: But at what price? said by ricep5 :If a carrier spends billions to get the spectrum, they have to pass along that cost to someone in the broadband food chain. I don't think the holes they speak of are large enough to get a payback to cover what they spent. 900Mhz is already in the public domain, why can't the "holes" be filled with that instead?? If they are serious in getting a better reach in unserved areas, leave it unlicensed and let the innovators take care of the rest. Unlicensed spectrum isn't a panacea. You then have to deal with interference and it's tough writing a real SLA for businesses. Also, with unlicensed I would expect the FCC to set the power limits lower than what they would if it was licensed.
I'd like to see it licensed but have it that the little guys can get at it. No multi-billion dollar auctions, just prove you have the capital to build it and submit a build/frequency plan with your application. Give preferential treatment to local small businesses when doling out licenses. If this is unlicensed with Part 15 like regs, this will just turn into another crowded band like 2.4 and 5.8 in metro areas and not very usable in rural areas due to power limitations, in my opinion. | |
| | | ditka_b
Premium
join:2001-10-05
Barrington, IL | Re: How long will it take? 2007 | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: How long will it take? I talked to a CSR for Time Warner the other day in my neighborhood and she told me that TWC Mid-Ohio has a policy that was just approved in a meeting in Columbus, OH that within the the next few months that all customers will be required to have a digital box; the will start handing them out in the next couple weeks, along with slowly giving them out to current customers. | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: How long will it take? said by hottboiinnc :I talked to a CSR for Time Warner the other day in my neighborhood and she told me that TWC Mid-Ohio has a policy that was just approved in a meeting in Columbus, OH that within the the next few months that all customers will be required to have a digital box; the will start handing them out in the next couple weeks, along with slowly giving them out to current customers. Ooooooooooh just think of all those juicy profits generated by forcing everyone to have a cable box with all those juicy FEES!
-
between the gateway and box fees thats an extra ~$10/month per sub(only those that didn't have to have a box), knowing time warner they'll put some sort of compliance fee in there too.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: How long will it take? no compliance charge they'll just charge extra for the remote LOL | |
| | cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA
| said by JTRockville :How long before cable companies tell subscribers the analog package is no longer available because of this FCC ruling? Not sure what the ruling has do with cable companies. Only the over-the-air stations are under the digital conversion deadline; the cable companies can put whatever they want on their cable. And, except for some of the lower channels, cables channel frequencies are different from the over-the-air channels anyway, and use frequencies not used for over-the-air TV. Or they could get rid of their analog package today, since they can cram a lot more channels over digital (just like the cellular companies). | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: How long will it take? when the over the air broadcasters give up that spectrum, there won't be an analog source - that's the whole idea, no more analog.
So, unless cablecos convert digital to analog, there shouldn't be analog channels any more. | |
| | | | | | | | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| they've got to be itching to do it.
I, for one, am NOT looking forward to having no more analog on cable. Unless they want to give me a (well, 4) GOOD digital box(es) (the old Moto's around here aren't that great...) that changes channels smoothly, doesn't flake out every other day, I might consider it. Some of the older Moto's here flicker a tube screen pretty wildly when changing channels. Not to mention I can't stand the delay. ...DVR's seem to be smoother...
Either way, cable will probably keep some analog around for a few more years and start slowly handing out their old clunky Moto's to people. | |
| |
AnonDOG
@verizon.net
| quote:
How long before cable companies tell subscribers the analog package is no longer available because of this FCC ruling?
What?  | |
| |
clickintheremote
@centurytel.net
| odd that you'd ask this today... as today in the mail was a notice from charter (onalaska, wi) about some line up changes...
it appears that our cable system here must be at capacity as they're making more "room"... two fewer analog channels (moved to extra-cost digital family tier), and the start of a 'digital lifeline' tier with local stations' subchannels (three currently, including the cw).
this second tidbit could see the cw and mntv moved off analog and to digital-only in the near future, as they are carried here as "second networks" of the cbs and abc stations via digital subchannel; and they're on analog basic cable. they're placing the cw up there now, how long until mntv is there too and they drop those analog signals? why else would they have put the cw on a different digital channel (in the 'lifeline' channel range') in addition to it's 'usual' 100 analog digital simulcast?
effective date is nov 7th.. just a month or two before thte annual price increase (and how much ya wanna bet that 'extended basic' aka analog only doesn't go DOWN?!?!)
oh, ya.. three new digital sports channels.. worthless as they are.. and no, no packers/vikings yet.
anyone else with similar reductions in analog channel availability needs to call and bitch, even if you don't actually watch the channels... two affected here (and both watched here) are WE and TOON DISNEY.
so, the answer to your question.... it appears that charter is beginning a plan to gradually migrate analog signals to digital only and FORCE their subscribers to pay for a box for every set (essentially charging 'per drop' again, and i thought that was an fcc no-no) plus extra programming fees if they want to continue receiving the same channels they've had for years (there hasn't been an analog lineup change in a LONG time, except for moving a couple channels around and squeezing in a upn slot when the local affilliate dropped the network like a bad habit in january). | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? said by Kylemaul :Also, are there any hard figures as to how many people still use only OTA broadcasts? There was a Nielsen study in the past year or so. Well under 10%, most low income, and (interestingly) high Latino portion.
Alot of people have said, only half-jokingly, it made alot of sense to just give this small group of folks free satellite service (like the FTA satellite in other countries), and put this very favorable spectrum to some other, better, use (lie WISP broadband, that's problematic on satellite due to latency, etc.). | |
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Kylemail :
Just wondering what it's going to cost me in taxes to subsidize those that were able to use Over-The-Air broadcasting before this FCC ruling. (I'm also predicting whiny cable lobbying for subsidized digital to analog converters). Also, are there any hard figures as to how many people still use only OTA broadcasts?
Well the government had passed the law over a decade ago that eliminated analog broadcasts. This change was to have supposed to happened by December 31, 2006, but kept getting put off. February 17th, 2009 is now the final date when analog broadcasts will end.
There was money's already allocated to help folks get converter boxes for their old TVs( which they will be able to get at the local wal-mart and other places), which in the sum of a $40 coupon.
Really though it's not necessary since all standard definition TVs( which are going the way of the dinosaur anyways ) 25 inches and up built after July 1st 2006 have had to have ATSC tuners built in. After March 1st 2007 all Tv 13 inches and up will have to have built in ATSC tuners. Many people will probably be looking to get new TVs anyways before Feb 2009 and those people that still use antennas to get TV won't need to make any changes. Only change they'll notice is an much improved picture since with a digital broadcast you either get the signal or you don't. No ghosting or snowflakes. | |
| | | 
fartness
Computersoc Dot Com
Premium
join:2003-03-25
Look Outside
clubs:
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? Right now with analog, I can pick up over the air and it's a little staticy but still watchable... does that mean it wouldn't come in at all with digital?
--
»www.computersOC.com - User reviews of computer hardware - Computer forums - Adelphia forum - P2P politics - more... | |
| | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? Maybe. More likely, given the same transmitter location and power level, it means you'll get a perfect digital signal. However, most stations are broadcasting digital at lower power than analog, and often from lower on the tower, and always on different channels, so what it means is there's no way to tell.
I can get all my local digitals OTA, though only a couple of the analog channels come in clear. Over-the-air could stage a comeback if the cable companies keep up their channel-cutting price-increasing ways. | |
| | | | |
fartness
Computersoc Dot Com
Premium
join:2003-03-25
Look Outside
clubs:
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? Will the digital channels then switch to the same channel as their analog broadcasts?
Like on analog, does 2-13 come in better on digital than 14-69?
--
»www.computersOC.com - User reviews of computer hardware - Computer forums - Adelphia forum - P2P politics - more... | |
| | | | | |
FCC Guy
@mindspring.com
 from:
John Galt
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? The FCC is attempting to clear out NTSC channels 2-6 since they do not work as well for DTV. Most will be in the UHF range. All other things being equal, if you can receive an analog signal on a nearby frequency (say, 7 if the DTV is on 8 (but not 6 since that's in a different band) or 12 if the DTV is on 13), even if it is a little noisy, you should have reliable DTV service.
Many people are utterly confused and confusing when it comes to this transition because they really do not understand how it works in the first place. | |
| | | | | | | | |
FCC Guy
@mindspring.com
| Re: Lowest price for (basic) cable will be? OTA TV is alive and well and broadcasting digitally as a simulcast (plus some additional stuff on the DTV side) with analog on two different channels right now. The TV stations must designate which of the two channels they will keep for DTV-only transmission after the much-extended deadline finally arrives. If your TV does not have an ATSC tuner you'll need a converter box. This the same situation we found ourselves in in the 1950's when UHF TV needed a separate receiver connected to a VHF-only TV.
So, your alarm is premature. | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC Moves on 700MHz Analog Spectrum
How long will it take?
·
·