republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
FCC Approves White Space Device Rules
McDowell: Our competitive and net neutrality worries are over!
by Karl Bode Thursday 23-Sep-2010 tags: business · wireless · hardware · alternatives
White Space broadband would use unlicensed and partially vacated spectrum created by the shift to digital television to create a new broadband delivery system. As expected, the FCC today voted to approve rules governing devices that use these white spaces, issuing a press release (pdf) stating these rules would require that white space devices consult a frequently-updated geolocation database to avoid interference with nearby TV broadcasts or wireless microphone transmissions. Says the FCC:

The Commission is also taking steps to ensure that incumbent services are protected from interference from the use of white spaces in various ways. In particular, today's Order reserves two vacant UHF channels for wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary service devices in all areas of the country. It also maintains a reasonable separation distance between TV White Space device and wireless microphone usage permitted to be registered in the database.

The rules appear to be a fairly decent compromise between the companies that have been bickering over this technology for years; namely Google, Microsoft, Dell and HP on one side -- and broadcasters on the other. FCC boss Julius Genachowski issued a statement (pdf) stating that using this new unlicensed spectrum would create a "powerful platform for innovation."

Whether this technology can be robust enough and evolve to provide additional competitive options isn't clear, and it will initially be used as a longer-range Wi-Fi alternative. Google, for example, has been testing White Space connectivity at an Ohio hospital using an experimental license granted by the FCC.

In his own statement (pdf), Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell insisted the availability of white spaces technology "provides consumers a competitive alternative to existing broadband providers," and "an additional check against potential anti-competitive mischief." McDowell took things one step further in a speech, insisting the FCC could now take network neutrality protections and competition off their to do list.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

digitalfreak
Premium
join:2005-12-09
Blacklick, OH

2 edits

Unlicensed

How is this going to work? If it's unlicensed spectrum, who decides who can use it? My understanding is that we're not talking somebody's home router here.

--
TKJunkMail aliases - ThrowDemsOut, MIllIlITER, MMH, Golf N Sun
PDXPLT

join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

Re: Unlicensed

said by digitalfreak:

My understanding is that we're not talking somebody's home router here.

Yes, we are.

How is this going to work?
The rules are all at: »www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily···74A1.pdf

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Unlicensed

88 pages?!?!

The FCC should summarize it in a one or two page document for the layman to understand, like they have done with other R&Os.

ogamawab

join:2009-03-26
Hinckley, MN

great news

maybe one day i can have my smart phone and smart devices connected to this network. forget at&t and Verizon when you can have internet everywhere....

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: great news

said by ogamawab:

maybe one day i can have my smart phone and smart devices connected to this network. forget at&t and Verizon when you can have internet everywhere....
I can safely assume your major in college was not electrical engineering (or any kind of engineering probably).

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices???

802.11 L for long distance.

Whether this technology can be robust enough and evolve to provide additional competitive options isn't clear, and it will initially be used as a longer-range Wi-Fi alternative.
I guess we can look forward to a new WiFi draft spec coming out in a year or 2 that will add the new longer distance WiFi to all the smartphones; iPads; laptops; etc.

But 802.11n now has all kinds of interference issues in apartment complexes and townhouse areas as neighbors step all over each other. I can imagine how an unlicensed 802.11L(for long distance WiFi ) spec with its ability to go longer distances and more easily penetrate walls will create even more interference problems.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:30

Re: 802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices???

I believe 802.11af is it?

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

2 edits

Re: 802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices???

said by Karl Bode:

I believe 802.11af is it?
Thanks for tip on the name.
Did a search on 802.11af and came up with this news release from today:
»www.prnewswire.com/news-releases···749.html
"We share the FCC's enthusiasm about the potential use of TV white spaces for Wi-Fi," said Wi-Fi Alliance CEO Edgar Figueroa. "The new FCC rules will foster innovation that benefits end users, while continuing to promote co-existence among all users of the spectrum."

The Wi-Fi Alliance recently initiated an industry effort to create a certification program for Wi-Fi devices operating in the TV white spaces. This program will draw on the emerging IEEE 802.11af standard.

Operation in television white spaces spectrum will enable Wi-Fi signals to travel up to three times farther and better penetrate obstructions such as walls and physical obstructions. New applications will be able to take advantage of this greatly improved range for Wi-Fi, to build large outdoor networks and extend coverage in hospitals, homes, corporate environments and more.
I hope they can set aside a LOT of channels for this or there is going to be a ton of interference issues as I mentioned in 1st post.

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

Re: 802.11 L (draft) be added to all the WiFi devices???

Here is a powerpoint presentation that lays out what plans they already have for channels:
»www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w···BObZeTQg

Gbcue
Almost P.E.
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8

Where are the crazies?

OMG EMF!!!!

ogamawab

join:2009-03-26
Hinckley, MN

lmao

lol crazies and emf lmao - we will be ok in the end result...

mr sean
Professional Infidel
Premium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Clearwire

1 edit

WTF?!?

said by article :

In his own statement (pdf), Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell insisted the availability of white spaces technology "provides consumers a competitive alternative to existing broadband providers," and "an additional check against potential anti-competitive mischief." McDowell took things one step further in a speech, insisting the FCC could now take network neutrality protections and competition off their to do list.
And...
said by McDowell's pdf statement :

Our action thus helps to bring more broadband to consumers as quickly as innovation, rather than the
government, will allow.
Realizing that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box still does not allow me to wrap my head around these comments.
How can there be a competitive alternative when the delivery technology is not tested, let alone priced?
If said service is not in place, and priced, how can it prevent "anti-competitive mischief."?
Bring more broadband to consumers?

I can only imagine his statement as some Bizarro World validation of his consistent anti-regulatory rhetoric... or simply the result of over-medication.
--
How you can make the world a Better Place

mix

join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI

Network neutrality off todo list?

WTF does the commissioner mean by they no longer have to address network neutrality and competition?

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

FUBAR

Yes in more fringe areas where OTA broadcast won't be listed because their signals don't supposedly exist some morons will undoubtly use a non-vacant channel for thier white space internet service and screw OTA TV for everyone in the area. Interference complaints will either be ignored by the FCC or take years to resolve.

There is no diubt that the FCC is determined to make sure everyone pays for TV without "officially" killing off OTA.

Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways?
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..

2 edits

Re: FUBAR

Agree. The database will lag the real world. How do you access a database, without activating the modem to update the database? Unlicensed TVWS devices will be causing interference. They will be mobile, which means no way to triangulate on interference causing devices. No point of contact. No accountability. This is just going to be the 2.4GHz spectrum, with all its problems, on a 10 times larger slice of spectrum.
cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

Re: FUBAR

Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability.

Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory.

Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: FUBAR

said by cornelius785:

Uh... keeping/creating a database whitespaces that exist within the TV band isn't impossible. The FCC knows all: transmitter locations, transmission powers, and approximate terrain. From there, just run some simulations to get a good idea of coverage areas (as other have done, which I assume the FCC has already done). Now you have a database of whitespace availability.

Accessing the database could be done by telling some stations to transmit a data stream on one of the ATSC multiplexes. Instant access to the database, in theory.

Getting a location fix is tougher. GPS may be expensive. Cell phone grid maybe better as sub-mile accuracy shouldn't be needed, just where is the nearest cell phone tower and that should be good enough. Autonomous detection of inuse TV station, microphones, and what not could be done (and probably will have to be done to some extent for wireless microphones), but riskier in terms of interference potential.
Try again. The FCC's best simulations can never reflect the real world.

Longley-Rice maps are an approximation at best.
PDXPLT

join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

2 edits
Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference.

Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff.

However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: FUBAR

said by PDXPLT:

Legally, interference to reception in fringe areas has never been guartanteed. Reception can be blocked at any time; e.g., a new Low Power TV licensee, a noisy car ignition, etc. Complaints to the FCC about interference to fringe reception have always been ignored, because there is nothing illegal about such interference.

Besides, with the transition to digital, there isn't really any "fringe area" for digital stations, anyway. Once you hit the edge of the area where you can receive a pciture, you fall off a cliff.

However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past.
yes there are fringe areas, I live in one. I know what I can and can't get. I know quite bit on this topic. There are some channels I can only get in at night. So these channel won't show up in any database. Ok so now some idiot and his whitespace devices can screw me getting that station in at all.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1
said by PDXPLT:

However, if a community sets up their own little video distribution network, the new rules say that the receiving antenna for that network will be protected, and white space transmitters can't operate near it. This is new protection they didn't even have in the past.
A "community video distribution network" is called cable TV.
openbox9

join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2
said by BF69:

Also I like to know when the FCC takes away channels 31-51 what white spaces will be left anyways?
This white space nonsense will die. As I suggest a few days ago, this whole white space thing is a waste of time and only serves to cause issues for you "fringers" in the short term and become pointless in the longer term as the spectrum is sold off for real wireless network access.
scott523

join:2005-12-02
Upper Darby, PA

1 edit

I suppose...

Those 88 pages worth of rules have no real meaning/use for us consumers at the moment?

XBL2009
------

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest

Laughing at America

Only America would try and put together the most complicated and convoluted wireless network based on white space. How the hell is this suppose to have more bandwidth then current N standard?

Maybe we should have done things properly and actually given a slice of spectrum for use as long range FI, no need for databases.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

1 edit

Re: Laughing at America

said by XBL2009:

Maybe we should have done things properly and actually given a slice of spectrum for use as long range FI, no need for databases.
Where exactly will they get this slice of spectrum from?

Oh I have an idea. How about channels 2-6 which very few TV stations use? Or maybe channel 37. No TV station in the US uses that, and we're better off not finding ET anyway.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: Laughing at America

said by fifty nine:

said by XBL2009:

Maybe we should have done things properly and actually given a slice of spectrum for use as long range FI, no need for databases.
Where exactly will they get this slice of spectrum from?

Oh I have an idea. How about channels 2-6 which very few TV stations use? Or maybe channel 37. No TV station in the US uses that, and we're better off not finding ET anyway.
Ch 2-6 won't work because the antennas for them would have to be huge and they suck at pentrating walls and are much more prone to interfernce. If 2-6 were better then TV stations would still be using them because the power requirement are much lower to cover the same area. Also I believe that eventually Ch 5 and 6 will be used for FM radio.

Ch 37 is also used in hospitals for medical devices.

The FCC should have just cut back OTA to say Ch 47 then let Ch 48-51 be used for this white space stuff.
zeddlar

join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·HughesNet Satell..

Re: Laughing at America

I got a kick out of them mentioning NY, NY complaining because there is almost no white space open there. If you put a tower in the middle of that city you likely wouldn't reach a single customer that doesn't already have DSL or cable at their disposal already, lol. Whats the point. I think this will be a great system for the mid U.S. where the terrain is hilly at it's worst and signals will be able to travel very large distances away from the transmit point but mountain customers and very large urban and suburban areas are probably going to be a bust still.

I have no doubts however that as the FCC predicted that companies deploying this service will find ways to overcome the obstacles the same as it has been overcome before, it will just take time but whether it actually reaches people who need the service at an affordable price is another story altogether because like the current TV broadcast stations if they stick to cities then there will be a very limited reward to it even when it does work properly.
--
HughesNet elite plan/.74 dish w/1watt trans. / 9000 modem / 3 computers on a linksy's wired network
jim_p_price7

join:2005-10-28
Henryetta, OK
said by XBL2009:

How the hell is this suppose to have more bandwidth then current N standard?
The whitespace freq's are lower than the existing unlicensed spectrum. That means better penetration of trees and other obstacles which means a larger service footprint for the little WISPS out there (of which I am one) to get more people in rural America online.

I'm anxious to see how fast the boys will release gear for this. I'm betting UBNT and others have some draft gear already waiting.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: Laughing at America

said by jim_p_price7:

said by XBL2009:

How the hell is this suppose to have more bandwidth then current N standard?
The whitespace freq's are lower than the existing unlicensed spectrum. That means better penetration of trees and other obstacles which means a larger service footprint for the little WISPS out there (of which I am one) to get more people in rural America online.

I'm anxious to see how fast the boys will release gear for this. I'm betting UBNT and others have some draft gear already waiting.
I hope as a WISP you make a REAL concerted effort to make sure you are absolutely in no way using a frequency that could be possibly be used for TV. Saying "Well that signal is too far away it can't possibly reach here" is not going to cut it. If you go by the "experts" we only get one channel in my area. That is far from the truth.

For example in your area in the UHF band 19, 23, 25, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48 have no DTV stations associated with them than have any chance of coming in at your area. Of course if you plan on offering service 20+ miles out then you have to take that into account. So some of those frequencies might be able to be used. Are you going to do you're due dilligence or are you going to make buck and not give a shit if people lose their OTA because you used a frequency that interferes with a station?

Monday, 04-Jun 06:12:22 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.