FCC White Space Test Results By July
Microsoft, Dell, Google eagerly wait...Tipped by nozero
details on the FCC's testing of a device that could use former TV airwaves to offer consumers broadband access are now available. A coalition of companies including Microsoft, Dell and Google recently submitted the unit
for testing, and they say the results of those tests should be available by July. A recent report
(pdf) boldly suggested that every American household could see access "for as little as $10 a month, by some estimates"
by using the freed spectrum. Broadcasters, however, oppose the idea -- and suggest the system would disrupt existing services.
Is it possible? Smells like Broadband over power-line to me, or can it actually by widely available?
Re: Is it possible?
said by Kfedka:So why do you say that? TV broadcasters are already using the same frequency range for sending signals 50-70 miles, over hills, through foliage, and into buildings. Do you think only data formatted as TV can do this?
Smells like Broadband over power-line to me, or can it actually by widely available?
This is the one technology that can actually be more available in rural areas than in urban ones, as there are more empty channels in rural areas. I think this has the best chance of enabling rural broadband, as opposed to wasky ideas like BPL and high-high-latency satellite.
The New America Foundation thinks that having more unlicensed spectrum is going to result in $10/mo internet access:
New America Foundation lost touch with reality
Using these white spaces, the wireless broadband industry could deliver Internet access to every American household at high speeds and low prices for as little as $10 a month by some estimates. And exactly who is going to do this for $10/mo - the government?? Sounds like another scheme dreamed up by those who are always trying to expand government involvement in everything.
My Web Page
Re: New America Foundation lost touch with reality Ahh, nothing better than the unqualified opinion of a suburban upper middle class Republican, whose life is entirely made possible by government services and subsidies, yet continue to espouse rugged individualism. I suggest that unless you're willing to give up your government-regulated TV, government-maintained streets, and government-paid police, you try to educate yourself a little about the real world, rather than continuing to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
The point, since you seem to have missed it, is that this new spectrum would be able to cover vast areas for very little cost. A single tower could very easily cover a bubble 30 miles wide, more if you provide better antennas on the client end. If the spectrum is made unlicensed, then the hardware will be cheap and broadly available. With cheap hardware that covers a large area, providers would be able to offer service to more people at a lower cost, and make their money in bulk.
| |said by Linklist:No, maybe someone that wants to make use of the free, unlicensed spectrum available under this initiative, and wants to become the Walmart of the broadband world. Offer 384K for $9.99 a month and undercut the incumbants. At these frequencies, no need for some pro-installed precisely aimed high gain antenna (a 20 dB antenaa ain't practical at these frequencies, anyway).
And exactly who is going to do this for $10/mo - the government??
It's called competition. Why the knee-jerk assumption that this involves a gov't program?
| |John GaltForward, MarchPremium
No Problem, Broadcasters! Now that DFS and TPC are available a new generation of devices utilizing this technology will eliminate any technological concerns you might have.
A is A
Re: No Problem, Broadcasters! That ain't what they're really worried about. The last thing they want to do is compete for eyeballs with yet another broadband provider, expecially one that's using free spectrum they've long considered "theirs".
The reality is that this is prime spectrum owned by the American people, that's currently horribly underutilized.
| |Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
What do you think, Karl ... this story is not gaining traction because ? ? ?
ooh..No! Will I need to upgrade from my "rabbit ears" to a roof antenna?
Traverse City, MI
I would only be impressed if... So, this is only relevant news if the speeds are decent. And by decent I mean something in the range of 802.11n (meaning 500mbps). Otherwise we already have plenty of crappy wireless standards.
Re: I would only be impressed if... How ridiculous is that statement? You do know that they're talking about wide-area networking, like WiMax, right? Not some overhyped home networking setup that isn't even close to being out yet.
News flash: local toddler fried touching internet antenna I guess I don't get it. It takes something like a million watts to broadcast a signal in a 50 or so mile radius, to reach my TV...one way. Do I need to install a 5kw or whatever transmitter to get the signal back to that tower?
Re: News flash: local toddler fried touching internet antenna I was wondering the same thing. This spectrum is used to broadcast a signal to users, but communication has never been two way. Will this be similar to the old DirecPC where you have decent download speeds, but need a phone line for upload? Does anyone know the details about how upload is accomplished with this technology?
| |said by abward:No it doesn't. That 1 million watts is EIRP, Effective Isotropic Radiatoed Power. In other words, the signal strength that would be obtained if that amount of power was fed into an antenna that radiated equally well in all, 3-dimensional, directions.
I guess I don't get it. It takes something like a million watts to broadcast a signal in a 50 or so mile radius, to reach my TV...one way.
In reality, that TV station antennas focus all their signal strength in a narrow vertical beam aimed at the horizon; very little is sent down to ground level or up n space (that's why neighborhoods near TV antennas don't get hit with very high radiation levels). For a 1 million watt EIRP station, the actual transmitter output is more like 200 KW.
And with that signal, they can go around hills, through trees, and hit the rabbit ears in your basement. With a TV signal that needs a 40 dB Signal to Noise Ratio to look decent.
OK for a WISP application you may need an exterior antenna, aimed at the WISP tower. Most people without broadband would gladly do this, and according to the FCC OTARD Rule, no local gov't or HOA can stop them from doing so.
Re: News flash: local toddler fried touching internet antenna Would this work with satellite television? (DirecTV) Sounds crazy to me.
South Bend, IN
Same junk This is the same shpeel that BPL adversaries said about it's technology. They don't want the competition, and are willing to do what it takes, including buyout of that spectrum allocation, for use as a bottom drawer file folder, and little more.