 | | i hope they do its time for more options avalible to rural america | |
|
 | | | Re: i hope they do More options in general. | |
|
| |  Mactronel Camino RealPremium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | Re: i hope they do Unhappy NAB, YaY !  | |
|
| | |  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: i hope they do NAtB YAY! | |
|
|  RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by hopetheydo :
its time for more options avalible to rural america
Right. And I am selling a bridge made of gold in the San Francisco Bay area.
I suspect you will not really see much gain in rural internet because of the need for the internet to have two way communications. That would mean that you would have to have not only transmission bandwidth, but reception bandwidth. And the pockets that are being used (and I do not have firm data since I can not find the frequencies under consideration, just hype) are probably not really all that big.
From the News article:
"The Federal Communications Commission's report will weigh in as early as Friday on the feasibility of opening up "white spaces"—unused pockets of the spectrum to become available when broadcasters move completely to digital television next year—for unlicensed use."
This does not seem like commercial use to me.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | | | Re: i hope they do doesn't sound like you know anymore than i do,we will just have to wait and see how good or bad it will work | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
4 edits |  A report did come out Friday
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···45A2.pdf
This report tentatively concludes that for the static case that is examined AWS-3 devices could operate at a power level of up to 23 dBm/MHz equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and with out-of-band emissions (OOBE) attenuated by 60 + 10*log(P) dB without a significant risk of harmful interference. However, this report also notes that the Commission has in the past adopted less stringent OOBE standards under flexible service rules whereby the licensees and industry work together cooperatively to manage potential interference. The report defines what the engineers felt were safe power levels without causing interference. But then says the FCC commissioners in the past have weakened the stds they came up with to make industry happy.
News story here:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···841.html
Devices are capable of accessing the "white spaces" between airwaves without affecting the adjacent licensed networks under certain power-level limits, the FCC concluded in a detailed report released Friday afternoon. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: The report did come out Friday said by Linklist:» hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···45A2.pdfThis report tentatively concludes that for the static case that is examined AWS-3 devices could operate at a power level of up to 23 dBm/MHz equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and with out-of-band emissions (OOBE) attenuated by 60 + 10*log(P) dB without a significant risk of harmful interference. However, this report also notes that the Commission has in the past adopted less stringent OOBE standards under flexible service rules whereby the licensees and industry work together cooperatively to manage potential interference. The report defines what the engineers felt were safe power levels without causing interference. But then says the FCC commissioners in the past have weakened the stds they came up with to make industry happy. Ummm...what does this have to do with white space from the reduction in TV guard bands? The referenced article is talking about the 2 GHz band and as far as I know, OTA channel 83 is around 900 MHz and CATV channel 158 is about 1 GHz.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: A report did come out Friday said by RayW:said by Linklist:» hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···45A2.pdfThis report tentatively concludes that for the static case that is examined AWS-3 devices could operate at a power level of up to 23 dBm/MHz equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and with out-of-band emissions (OOBE) attenuated by 60 + 10*log(P) dB without a significant risk of harmful interference. However, this report also notes that the Commission has in the past adopted less stringent OOBE standards under flexible service rules whereby the licensees and industry work together cooperatively to manage potential interference. The report defines what the engineers felt were safe power levels without causing interference. But then says the FCC commissioners in the past have weakened the stds they came up with to make industry happy. Ummm...what does this have to do with white space from the reduction in TV guard bands? The referenced article is talking about the 2 GHz band and as far as I know, OTA channel 83 is around 900 MHz and CATV channel 158 is about 1 GHz. Read the Wash Post news story.
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···841.html
Some news outlets were confused as to WHAT was being released Friday, including the Reuters article quoted in the BBR story.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: The report did come out Friday Again...that has nothing to do with the TV spectrum, it is another band altogether with different characteristics.
2 GHz is not the same as sub 1 GHz.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: A report did come out Friday said by RayW:Again...that has nothing to do with the TV spectrum, it is another band altogether with different characteristics. 2 GHz is not the same as sub 1 GHz. I think Reuters got confused as to what report was being issued Friday and said a "White Space" report was coming out when it wasn't. Then the Wash Post got the correct report but mis-charcterized it as a White Space report.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: A report did come out Friday Fairly sure the Reuters report is correct, since the White Space results should really be out any day now.
The MocoNews (via Washington Post) piece completely confuses two distinctly different wireless efforts... | |
|
| Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Different report.
That one the FCC released on Friday has to do with M2Z networks plan to build a national wireless network, and the potential interference claimed by T-Mobile.
That MocoNews report (published by the Washington Post) confuses the two, different wireless concepts. | |
|
| | acting freaky where are the 12 comments | |
|
|
| | | License it School buses, fans, etc wipe my DTV out too. That's because these devices emit interfering energy in band. Not much you can do except put up a better antenna.
It is prudent for the FCC to make damn sure we don't launch another citizen's band where anything goes.
Rural America needs spectrum under 500 mhz because 900 mhz doesn't work in the woods. All of the broadcasters & the FCC's concerns involve non-licensed misuse so why not issue licenses? Not the expensive auction type license but a simple on line application reviewed by the FCC's computers, the SBE, or local ham club. That will work as long as there is an appeal's process. The computer technology today makes this a piece of cake. | |
|
| | | | Re: License it What might work just as well would be to require that wireless devices look for a broadcast signal, and if they find one, not transmit on that frequency. Basically, when you set the device up, it will scan for available channels and then set up a band map that it can use. This would be automatically refreshed from time to time.
The issue with licenses is that you could get into a situation where people or companies could try to grab all the licenses in a given area to exclude anyone else from using them. And I'd frankly be surprised if that DIDN'T happen.
Now, depending on how many devices or networks could operate in a given area, I wouldn't mind seeing licenses to cover specific geographic areas, such as a few neighborhoods, with the stipulation that the licensee be located within that area and that they could hold no more than one license. This would make it easier for a group of residents who want faster, cheaper, or just different options to set up a co-op by bringing in a T-1 or T-3 and then sharing it wirelessly and splitting the cost. This won't happen everywhere, but I could see it becoming a niche service in some places. | |
|
| | | systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | Re: License it said by ISurfTooMuch:What might work just as well would be to require that wireless devices look for a broadcast signal, and if they find one, not transmit on that frequency. Basically, when you set the device up, it will scan for available channels and then set up a band map that it can use. This would be automatically refreshed from time to time. What about those of us who use a 60' high high-gain aerial with a pre-amp at the extreme fringe of our DTV reception (76 miles, 2-edge)? How is a "White-Space" device supposed to identify those faint levels? The FCC change my DMA (D.C.) a few years back and I can't receive any DTV stations from the new one (Harrisburg/York) they placed me in. I do get ABC, CBS, NBC, CW DTV from Baltimore.
--
Personal Theme Song:
RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows.
Rush Radio Website | |
|
| | Stop wasting Rural America. I live in a very big city -
I have no problems with fast internet access.
BUT
My extended family lives in a rural area and can get virtually no access beyond dial-up (sorry, the modern internet doesn't effectively function on dial up anymore)
Our minds are our greatest resource and by effectively unplugging this huge population from the modern world we are wasting this resource.
This should be a matter of national attention.
It really is just that important. | |
|
| | | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. To think "white space" spectrum will help rural dwellers get internet is putting blinders on. NO COMPANY is going to use "white space" spectrum to deploy internet to people where the population density (i.e. customer base) is so low that it will probably not recover the cost of the equipment.
IF the politicians really want to HELP rural americans get faster internet they will lift all federal tarrifs on T-1's and ban all Inter and Intra LATA tarrifs on T-1's at the local level for service to home users. This would GREATLY expand the availability of internet to rural users.
The companies that want access to white space sepectrum have the following characteristics:
- Don't want to PAY for licensed spectrum
- Don't care about incumbent devices already using white space spctrum (Wireless mics, etc.)
- Want to deploy in densly populated areas where there are more customers and entrenced incumbents
Sprint, Verizon and ATT are MUCH better posied to offer high speed internet to rural customers and they can do it NOW. | |
|
| | | | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. now you might be right about deploying in densely populated areas,but do you really think people that have access to dsl or cable will switch to this.i doubt that unless there is a hell of a price difference.
it looks like you are the one with blinders on just like the stupid tellco company's trying to compete with cable in speed.tellco will never reach the speed of cable using old copper they would have been better off trying to get dsl to all of their users first,because there are a lot of tellco users that will never get cable,but have a chance with dsl,and tellco could get almost all of them,as with whitespace
one day tellcos will wake up and see that they fucked up by not doing this,as they are already loosing pots customers everyday that they prob would not if offered dsl,and whitespace also has potential to serve most of rural america the same way cell services do,but you are prob right they will think we are not worth it and deploy in densely populated areas thinking that people will switch to them.
well they better be ready to spends millions on equipment and offer service next to nothing for that.why not spend millions on equipment in rural and charge a little bit more to recoup build out faster,but hey what do i know IM just rural trash that is used to getting fucked,and paying more for less,and you also forget that this is mainley supposed to be used in rural america where we dont have any other option that dialup,and satt. why does the citys need this they dont they already have at least dsl or cable,and wireless | |
|
| | | | | Rural whitespace Comcast, Time Warner, and the large MSO's did NOT wire America. Instead they bought out the mom & pops across the country.
Comcast, Time Warner, and the large MSO's will not use unlicensed spectrum except to link a few subs here & there.
XOHM will not 'wire' rural America. XOHM's first trial is in Chicago. Their long range plans don't include 10 to 20% of the nation.
Verizon doesn't give a damn about rural America. Verizon is busy cherrypicking with FIOS.
In metro areas whitespace will be used for mobile. Eventually there will be so much of it that the FCC will have to have some form of regulation.
In rural areas mom & pops will use whitespace to serve the unserved and underserved. Do NOT expect Verizon or Comcast to join in. If 500 to 675 MHZ use is permitted, small operators will be able to reach large rural geographic areas without expensive repeaters every half mile. Then the big fish will eat the little fish. | |
|
| | | |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Rural whitespace said by Abe_ :
Comcast, Time Warner, and the large MSO's did NOT wire America. Instead they bought out the mom & pops across the country.
Comcast, Time Warner, and the large MSO's will not use unlicensed spectrum except to link a few subs here & there.
XOHM will not 'wire' rural America. XOHM's first trial is in Chicago. Their long range plans don't include 10 to 20% of the nation.
Verizon doesn't give a damn about rural America. Verizon is busy cherrypicking with FIOS.
In metro areas whitespace will be used for mobile. Eventually there will be so much of it that the FCC will have to have some form of regulation.
All correct points. In addition, these millions of mobile transmitters, all using a MUCH wider and "noisier" (more random) carrier than previous unlicensed devices operating anywhere under 2 GHz will cause UHF DTV to be just as unreliable as UHF analog TV was. Not that you care about that, I know. The problem for you is ...
In rural areas mom & pops will use whitespace to serve the unserved and underserved. Do NOT expect Verizon or Comcast to join in. If 500 to 675 MHZ use is permitted, small operators will be able to reach large rural geographic areas without expensive repeaters every half mile. Then the big fish will eat the little fish.
Nope! Now you are just wishing. First of all, no one will set up rural service any more than they already are. And if they do, how many people do you think live in this "large rural geographical area" served by one tower? What you would have is THOUSANDS of people sharing a few dozen megabits of bandwidth. Worse than satellite, and therefore useless for rural broadband. Wireless dialup is all you'd have, assuming anyone sets it up, which they won't.
--
"The sacrosanct free market would supposedly regulate itself. The problem with that approach is that regulations are just rules. If there are no rules, the players can cheat." - Ellen Hodgson Brown, JD | |
|
| |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | said by moon1234 :
Sprint, Verizon and ATT are MUCH better posied to offer high speed internet to rural customers and they can do it NOW.
Yet... they don't. Why is that? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. They already do in many places with EVDO service.
1. Keep in mind there is NO whitespace data equipment currently available.
2. New equipment will be expensive. Making it hard for small startups to get into the game.
I know at least three people that live in rural areas that use EVDO service in place of dialup.
We also have to face the fact that 10-20 percent of America is lightly populated that satellite based service will be the only option.
There are parts of the US that have no cell service because there are not enough people there to justify a tower. | |
|
| | systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | said by moon1234 :
IF the politicians really want to HELP rural americans get faster internet they will lift all federal tarrifs on T-1's and ban all Inter and Intra LATA tarrifs on T-1's at the local level for service to home users. This would GREATLY expand the availability of internet to rural users. I've never figured out why this problem has not been addressed. xDSL is distance and bandwidth limited, where T-1 service can supply 1.44MB/s to any distance and would be a great replacement for dial-up.
--
Personal Theme Song:
RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows.
Rush Radio Website | |
|
| | | MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. said by systems2000:I've never figured out why this problem has not been addressed. xDSL is distance and bandwidth limited, where T-1 service can supply 1.44MB/s to any distance and would be a great replacement for dial-up. Because T1 requires a 25-pair cable. It's essentially 24 channel ISDN, that's why the distance limit is so large. Coax (cable TV) is much cheaper to run to residences and faster. I bet even fiber is cheaper these days.
--
"The sacrosanct free market would supposedly regulate itself. The problem with that approach is that regulations are just rules. If there are no rules, the players can cheat." - Ellen Hodgson Brown, JD | |
|
| | | | systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace
2 edits | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. I realize now, that I was thinking of ISDN. | |
|
| | | | | | Because T1 requires a 25-pair cable.
You don't know what your talking about. Most T-1's deployed today are HDSL framed and delivered over a SINGLE copper pair just like an analog phone line.
There is NOTHING extra required besides a standard copper pair. Virtually ALL homes have at least two or more copper pairs coming into their home. The second pair is almost always UNUSED.
Virtually ALL telco's could offer EVERYONE T-1 service. The main limiting factor is the COST of the taxes and fees. Most all CO's have the necessary equipment to support DSX-1 service today. That is why you CAN get a T-1 virtually anywhere in the US. The telco's and the goverment just want you to PAY THROUGH THE NOSE to get it.
Again, if the goverment wanted to deploy faster than dialup to more people in the US they could push the deregulation/taxation in this area. Ohhh Noooo. Deregulation. | |
|
| | | | | MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Stop wasting Rural America. said by moon1234 :
You don't know what your talking about. Most T-1's deployed today are HDSL framed and delivered over a SINGLE copper pair just like an analog phone line. If that's the case, there's a repeater on the line every 3 miles or so. There's no magic way around that physical limit.
--
"The sacrosanct free market would supposedly regulate itself. The problem with that approach is that regulations are just rules. If there are no rules, the players can cheat." - Ellen Hodgson Brown, JD | |
|
| systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace
1 edit | said by PulSamsara :
...(sorry, the modern internet doesn't effectively function on dial up anymore)... You can blame the web designers for this. If they would stop using Flash, design their sites by W3C standards, and optimize their graphics, dial-up would still be an effective way to reach the Internet. | |
|
| | | So-
Since I am dealing with real world issues and have some interest in real world results:
1) What can I recommend to my family NOW that will allow them to join the modern world ? (Besides Satellite service.)
(they happen to live in Central NY (rural- outside Cooperstown area) but I'd like to think that some common problems might be satisfied using the same brilliant recommendations - ie ... Rural Nebraska, Rural Arkansas, Rural Montana, etc., etc)
2) What's, realistically, coming 'down the pipe' in the next few years to solve this problem.
Again- I consider this a complete waste of human capital...
How can we fix this ? | |
|
| systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | They don't have any type of DSL service available? Why not check with one of the ISP's in the area to see if they offer Wireless? | |
|
|
|
·
Just look at DTV for example,