dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FCC Approves First White Space Broadband Device
After Years of Debate a New Technology Arises
by Karl Bode 03:11PM Friday Dec 23 2011
After years of analysis and sometimes silly and heated debate, the FCC has given the green light to the first white space broadband device. White Space broadband uses the unlicensed spectrum freed by the transition to digital television to offer a new form of wireless broadband, though broadcasters and others had argued that interference made the idea impractical. The first approved device by the FCC is the KTS Agility Data Radio -- a modest start but hopefully the beginning of a compelling new technology. FCC rules governing such devices were approved late last year, with the FCC creating new databases used by devices to confirm that they won't create interference to nearby devices.

"With today's approval of the first TV white spaces database and device, we are taking an important step towards enabling a new wave of wireless innovation," FCC boss Julius Genachowski said in a statement on Thursday. "Unleashing white spaces spectrum has the potential to exceed even the many billions of dollars in economic benefit from WiFi, the last significant release of unlicensed spectrum, and drive private investment and job creation."

view:
topics flat nest 

treichhart

join:2006-12-12

Only problem is it can only go upto 4meg for wifi

The only problem with this WSBD it can only go upto 4meg for wifi so it might not be good for wisp's. Because the future everything will be broadband heavy requiring 3+ meg download.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Only problem is it can only go upto 4meg for wifi

Expect to see gear with faster speeds faster than 4mbps.

treichhart

join:2006-12-12
I would say other 2 years before you see that it happen because that happen to the wimax 3.65Ghz system.

klkjkljlkj

@cox.net
4 actual mbps or likely 3?, seems like it would be fine for low-level internet users a la dsl

mix

join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI
I think this is for low bandwidth communications over moderate distances, probably not line of site either.

treichhart

join:2006-12-12
Again like I said in the future this will not work since everything will be broadband heavy because of all the stuff is in the works and stuff.
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2
said by treichhart:

The only problem with this WSBD it can only go upto 4meg for wifi so it might not be good for wisp's. Because the future everything will be broadband heavy requiring 3+ meg download.

This is the 1st generation stuff. Carlson Wireless already has a TVWS device that will go up to 12 megs in a single channel. Start bonding multiple channels together and the speed will increase quickly, especially if the FCC allows them to use the full channel width on overlapping channels.

treichhart

join:2006-12-12
But again it probably take 2 years before the public like us wisp can even use the space just like how the wimax took forever to get released to wisp's. So I would say its going to be a dead technology just like how BPL was.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
said by treichhart:

The only problem with this WSBD it can only go upto 4meg for wifi so it might not be good for wisp's. Because the future everything will be broadband heavy requiring 3+ meg download.

Good for those stuck with satellite but not much more.
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem!

treichhart

join:2006-12-12
people will still be on satellite there buddy because I can see this will be a dead technology just like how the bpl was.

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Nice PR piece

Karl must be reading from Genachowski's script. I give it about a month before it turns into another BPL gimmick.

This will fail too. Just wait.

And by the way, "White Space broadband uses the unlicensed spectrum freed by the transition to digital television" is incorrect. It shoves more unlicensed noise into an already crowded band that Julius fully intends to make even more crowded.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Nice PR piece

Didn't King Julius and Obama want to take all of the UHF spectrum eventually?

This essentially leaves white space noisemakers dead in the water, IMO.
binkleym

join:2010-05-15
Ashland City, TN

Would love to try it!

My parents live in a valley where they can't get DSL, cable, 3g/4g. All the other wireless technologies are pure line-of-site. I'd love to see what kind of bridge I can set up between them and me over 145-225 MHz. That has the potential to be some chocolate-covered awesome. Any idea what they'll cost?

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Re: Would love to try it!

I would love to give this a try also. I would be able to get a TWC connection less then a mile away from me and bridge it over to me. I see people complaining about it being slow but 3mbps could do wonders to rural communities.
bcltoys

join:2008-07-21
Lost today

Re: Would love to try it!

If I could get 3mb all the time 24/7 i'm in cause on 3g i'm lucky if I get 100 kbps on average.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Re: Would love to try it!

said by bcltoys:

If I could get 3mb all the time 24/7 i'm in cause on 3g i'm lucky if I get 100 kbps on average.

sounds like you're on cricket broadband.
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem!
bcltoys

join:2008-07-21
Lost today

Re: Would love to try it!

Nope Verizon/Millenicom.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
If it's line-of-site, why wait? There are existing point-to-point wireless bridges. They aren't terribly expensive (~$1,000) and they'll easily bridge several miles at 100Mbps full duplex. A quick Google revealed this possibility: »www.gridconnect.com

I'll bet more searching would find something even cheaper.

If you are technically inclined, you could also get by on the cheap by using high power 802.11 devices coupled with high-gain, directional antennas. Check out this site for high power equipment: »www.engeniustech.com

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Re: Would love to try it!

Line of site is whats kicking my ass right now due to the terrain. I think this new device that just got approved doesnt need LOS. Thanks for the links, ill look into them.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Would love to try it!

Check out their 900mhz bridge. It might do the trick. It doesn't need LOS. The lower frequency will penetrate obstacles. It still won't go through a bluff/mountain but it might bounce around a few hills.

Davesworld

join:2007-10-30
Everett, WA
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·Callcentric

Antenna size?

My main concern is the antenna size for the longer VHF wavelength.

When people speculated about using the lower VHF for cellular I envisioned a cell phone with a 32" whip.

I should note that many of the OTA broadcasters moved their DVB back down to VHF after the transition. In my area, at least the upper VHF, channel 9 to 13 is used for DVB in addition to several on UHF. When I first started watching OTA DVB, I only needed a UHF antenna. There's no such thing as an HD antenna or digital antenna as most probably know.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Antenna size?

said by Davesworld:

My main concern is the antenna size for the longer VHF wavelength.

When people speculated about using the lower VHF for cellular I envisioned a cell phone with a 32" whip.

I should note that many of the OTA broadcasters moved their DVB back down to VHF after the transition. In my area, at least the upper VHF, channel 9 to 13 is used for DVB in addition to several on UHF. When I first started watching OTA DVB, I only needed a UHF antenna. There's no such thing as an HD antenna or digital antenna as most probably know.

VHF for digital is prone to interference. Espeically low-VHF which is why so few use it. Those that do are trying to get on UHF. hi-VHF isn't much better. Hi-VHF can get interfence from 2nd harmonics so if you have some strong FM stations in your area that can effect hi-VHF channels.

Davesworld

join:2007-10-30
Everett, WA
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·Callcentric

Re: Antenna size?

said by 88615298:

said by Davesworld:

My main concern is the antenna size for the longer VHF wavelength.

When people speculated about using the lower VHF for cellular I envisioned a cell phone with a 32" whip.

I should note that many of the OTA broadcasters moved their DVB back down to VHF after the transition. In my area, at least the upper VHF, channel 9 to 13 is used for DVB in addition to several on UHF. When I first started watching OTA DVB, I only needed a UHF antenna. There's no such thing as an HD antenna or digital antenna as most probably know.

VHF for digital is prone to interference. Espeically low-VHF which is why so few use it. Those that do are trying to get on UHF. hi-VHF isn't much better. Hi-VHF can get interfence from 2nd harmonics so if you have some strong FM stations in your area that can effect hi-VHF channels.

We do have some strong FM stations here. All our TV and FM towers are all over the place in the Puget Sound Area. Interesting though is that the second harmonic you stated would indeed fall somehwere in high VHF from a given frequency in the 20mhz FM band. I know when we're talking millions of watts of FM transmitter power a second harmonic can indeed be strong as well. I actually liked it when all DVB here was UHF.
Madtown
Premium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA

How long before every city has it?

How long before every cities has it.?

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Pointless

If the FCC takes away channels 31-51 where are these whitespaces going to be? Also I can see some idiot using a channel currently used by TV in my area beause it's not listed in some database.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

I see trouble

Frequency Bands (factory selectable)

MHz 145 to 225
MHz 210 to 470
MHz 470 to 930

Consdiering verizon and at&t owns much of the spectrum from 698-930 I think they'll have a bit of an issue with this thing potentially causing interference. These deices might have permission to run in the TV spectrum but that ends at 698. So why did they FCC approve a device that runs higher than that?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: I see trouble

There's probably stipulations on it's usage. (certain situations/Geographic areas/very specialized device).
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
I like the idea of digital packet repeater nets.. kind of like CB for computers (maybe even a portable plug-in for tablets?!?)... chat, video conf., and file share with the neighborhood and even share the internet as well (either with specific users or the entire net). If several dozen users multiplexed their internet speeds, that would be quite fast, but somewhat slower ping times. WIFI/WIMAX never really achieved this kind of consumer friendly utilization. It's not just verizon licenses... there are all kinds of first responders on 400mhz including police frequencies-- which are.. for the time being.. still analog.
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

White spaces

Guys, the gear they are releasing, and it's usage is for commercial applications. You wouldn't be purchasing this stuff for trivial links for your home or neighbors. We are talking big money to buy it in most cases. Or big enough you wouldn't pay for it.

Also, If I am not mistaken, the gear has integrated channel assignment via a nationwide database. You can't just pick whatever channel you want to use if I understand correctly. The gear does it for you to make sure you don't interfere with a licensed user.

It is not typical WiFi.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: White spaces

said by gunther_01:

Also, If I am not mistaken, the gear has integrated channel assignment via a nationwide database. You can't just pick whatever channel you want to use if I understand correctly. The gear does it for you to make sure you don't interfere with a licensed user.

My point is I've seen the data bases and they are off. They fail to list most of the nashville TV channels in my area. Yes they are weak but many people can get them in with some effort. Since they are weak to begin with it wouldn't take much for this device to cause interference if someone uses a TV channel that didn't appear in the database but in fact does exist.
WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

1 edit

Re: White spaces

said by 88615298:

My point is I've seen the data bases and they are off. They fail to list most of the nashville TV channels in my area. Yes they are weak but many people can get them in with some effort. Since they are weak to begin with it wouldn't take much for this device to cause interference if someone uses a TV channel that didn't appear in the database but in fact does exist.

Camden appears to be located outside of most Nashville DT broadcasters' respective noise limited service level contours (28 dB for low VHF, 36 dB for high VHF, 41 dB for UHF). If so, I do not believe that the broadcasters (nor, by extension, the viewers) are entitled to protection from interference because Camden is out of market.

You can view the Nashville DT broadcasters and their service contours at the FCC site:

»transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?s···=&size=9

AJ

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: White spaces

said by WiWavelength:

said by 88615298:

My point is I've seen the data bases and they are off. They fail to list most of the nashville TV channels in my area. Yes they are weak but many people can get them in with some effort. Since they are weak to begin with it wouldn't take much for this device to cause interference if someone uses a TV channel that didn't appear in the database but in fact does exist.

Camden appears to be located outside of most Nashville DT broadcasters' respective noise limited service level contours (28 dB for low VHF, 36 dB for high VHF, 41 dB for UHF). If so, I do not believe that the broadcasters (nor, by extension, the viewers) are entitled to protection from interference because Camden is out of market.

Ummm that's my point Einstein. These devices can make OTA signals completely unwatchable if some moron uses these devices on a TV channel in my area. Thus FORCING people here to have to pay for cable or satellite. The FCC knows this wil happen in many places. They want to kill OTA TV and thus by making it harder to view and forcing people toward pay TV services they can steal spectrum and give it at&t and Verizon. Too bad not too many can see this scam for what it's for.
WiWavelength

join:2011-11-16
Lawrence, KS

Re: White spaces

said by 88615298:

Ummm that's my point Einstein. These devices can make OTA signals completely unwatchable if some moron uses these devices on a TV channel in my area. Thus FORCING people here to have to pay for cable or satellite. The FCC knows this wil happen in many places. They want to kill OTA TV and thus by making it harder to view and forcing people toward pay TV services they can steal spectrum and give it at&t and Verizon. Too bad not too many can see this scam for what it's for.

First, lose the pejorative tone, both toward me and the FCC. This is not some grand conspiracy to take away your OTA DTV.

Now, did you read what I wrote in my post? Did you understand the concept of service level contours? Did you view the contour maps from the FCC database that I linked?

Camden is outside of the established service contours for six of the eight Nashville DT stations. If my understanding of FCC broadcasting regulations is correct, then those six DT stations are not entitled to interference protection in Camden because Camden is outside of their licensed markets, respectively. That you may be able to "DX" some Nashville DT channels beyond their service contours is nothing more than serendipity and not entitled to interference protection.

AJ

DaveRickmers

join:2011-07-19
Canyon Country, CA

I don't think that's much of a radio

It looks like something thrown together to show progress at CES. It's a black box SDR, which needs a host PC to configure and probably to operate in any advanced digital manner. Depending on the applications running on the host computer it can be any of a number of Advanced Wireless doodads.

My cure for people who want broadband and can't get it due to geographic isolation stands; move.