White Space Broadband Tests BeginClaudeville, Virginia gets early tests, free hardware 03:53PM Monday Oct 26 2009 by Karl Bodetags: alternatives · networking · consumers · wirelessProponents of White Space broadband hope to use the unlicensed and partially vacated spectrum created by the shift to digital television to create a new broadband delivery systemn (and sell hardware using this technology). A coalition of major companies, including Google, Microsoft and Dell recently conquered the objections of Dolly Parton and the broadcasting industry to get FCC approval, and are now moving forward with the technology's first tests. The first tests in the United States of the technology will take place in Claudeville, Virginia, where local schools are getting an added perk: Under an experimental license granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Spectrum Bridge designed and deployed a wireless TV white spaces network to distribute broadband Internet connectivity in Claudville, Virginia. To ensure that Claudville residents can make the most of this new high-speed connectivity, Dell, Microsoft and the TDF Foundation contributed state-of-the-art computer systems and software applications to the local school, as well as the town's new computer center. In this instance, the technology is providing backhaul access between the Internet and the local area's Wi-Fi network. Ideally, white space broadband would be used to provide rural last mile access at lower prices. Related:- Zer01 Mobile: $70 Unlimited Voice, SMS Data
- Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
- Verizon Mulls FiOS/Wireless Bundles
- AT&T's 'Blogger Guy' Faces Public Backlash
- DSL Vs. Carrier Pigeon
- iPhone Actually Hurting AT&T Customer Satisfaction
- Comcast Deploys Root Server On Comcast Network
- Mandatory Smartphone Data Plans Seem Hypocritical
|
 zalternate
join:2007-02-22 BC
·TELUS
| bureaucracy in action. Town was denied "government Rural Connectivity Grant", since the 'local' ISP is already serving 'one' home.
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···town.ars
Patrick County, where Claudville is located, received a 2000 grant to string fiber along the county's major roads, but this did nothing to bring high-speed access directly into homes. In 2007, the county tried to arrange for a government Rural Connectivity Grant to build and operate a modest 10-seat computer center in the town's Community Building. After the proposal was ready, however, an unnamed ISP showed up at a meeting and announced that they were now serving the areawhich invalidated the grant proposal.
Residents were not pleased, especially when it became clear that only one home in town was being served. "This was a couple of years ago, and the company that was serving a single household has not provided fiber up the main road, with nodes, and they are not even providing high-speed Internet service to homes on the side of the road they already serve," Large told Congress. -- Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. | |
|  |   Matt Take me down to the paradise city Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: bureaucracy in action. Indeed. From the very next paragraph where you stopped quoting:
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) chairs the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and his office helped to arrange something unusual for Claudville: a trial rollout of white spaces broadband, which makes unlicensed use of empty slots in the TV band. -- "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln | |
|   DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | Not a real-world test Sure. Try it out where there's no TV to mess up. How many places like that are there? | |
|  |   bender Bite my shiny metal ass Premium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL clubs: | Re: Not a real-world test once again. its just tv. | |
|  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: Not a real-world test Once again, it's just a promise of affordable Internet service to rural markets  | |
|  |  |  |   bender Bite my shiny metal ass Premium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL clubs: | Re: Not a real-world test touche | |
|  |  |   DavePR
join:2008-06-04
·DSL EXTREME
| Just TV? A lot of people enjoy their TV. Over the air TV is finally getting good, with all the extra sub-channels and stuff. People in rural areas have more fragile TV reception than people in cities. Most people are not terrain-blocked from receiving TV stations 50 to 75 miles away. The people of Clod Virginia or wherever are terrain-blocked, so we won't know how much this stuff messes up TV reception. | |
|  |  |  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Not a real-world test Since the frequencies and the base technology are the same, the signals will suffer from the same issues with terrain as DTV. A significant portion of the US is terrain blocked, which is one of the reasons wifi will not work(line of sight only). It is another reason that makes this a good choice. | |
|  |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO | Take at look at a map. The majority(geographically) of the US is like that. Considering one of the major forces behind this is to provide rural broadband, testing it in a rural(relatively) area makes sense. | |
|  |   Eat Me
join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ | Try it out here, where we are 50+ miles from the transmitters.
This will prove once and for all that WSDs will kill OTA reception in fringe areas. | |
|  |  |  cornelius785
join:2006-10-26 Worcester, MA
| Re: Not a real-world test oooo you sound so confident that whitespace devices will fail. do you have some proof that they will fail? have you done your own research concerning operating whitespace devices in the TV band? please share with us. until you do, quit spreading your FUD. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT
| Trials in Montana? I'd like them to do trials in my home state. I'm sure small towns would love to try this technology.
..and for all the "It creates interference" crap.. Where's the proof? I want a video of the interference it creates.
..and don't count the video at »www.interferencezones.com/whitespaces.wmv. After looking at that, and where the interference occurs, the point is invalid. -- Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,Win7]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] | |
|  |  jay_rm
join:2002-04-12 Netville
·Fox Valley Internet
·ViaTalk
| Re: Trials in Montana? said by Simba7 :I'd like them to do trials in my home state. I'm sure small towns would love to try this technology. ..and for all the "It creates interference" crap.. Where's the proof? I want a video of the interference it creates. So, what ARE the rules now for interference from 'white space devices' ?? Can I assume the 'white space device' operates under Part 15-like rules, where ANY interference to licensed users requires the interferer to shut down immediately upon being informed ?
Or, have the 'white space' boosters stacked the rules deck and can go on merrily interfering... -- 3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net 'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' | |
|  |  |   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT
| Re: Trials in Montana? So.. Someone with a Microwave oven interferes with my Wireless Router. They're producing interference and I can't access the internet or my network until they stop using it.
On one laptop, it crashes the WiFi driver and I have to reboot the laptop.
Should we ban all Microwave ovens because they produce interference? What about wireless phones that operate on the 2.4GHz band? -- Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,Win7]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] | |
|  |  |  |  jay_rm
join:2002-04-12 Netville
·Fox Valley Internet
·ViaTalk
3 edits | Re: Trials in Montana? Well, you didn't answer my innocent question on what the rules are - I'll have to assume you don't know.
A microwave oven AND your router are both FCC Part 15 unlicensed devices (edit: assuming your router is a 802.1x device and not a WiMAX device). As such, they MUST NOT interfere with any licensed users of spectrum AND accept any interference from licensed users. Part 15 devices interfering with Part 15 devices is considered a "tough luck" deal, as NEITHER has any priority.
What about the 2.4 Ghz phones ? They are also FCC Part 15 devices and are covered by the same requirements I mentioned above. They have no protection and must cease operation if interfering with licensed users. Ever wonder why all three of your devices all use the same frequencies ? Because there is a spectrum allocation for unlicensed devices at 2.4 GHZ (+/-) called the ISM band (Industrial/Scientific/Medical). There are several ISM bands scattered throughout the spectrum - all for UN-licensed devices.
So, I ask again, WHAT are the rules nowdays in regards to "white space" devices interfering with licensed users ? ? -- 3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net 'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' | |
|  |  |  |   Eat Me
join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
2 edits | said by Simba7 :So.. Someone with a Microwave oven interferes with my Wireless Router. They're producing interference and I can't access the internet or my network until they stop using it. On one laptop, it crashes the WiFi driver and I have to reboot the laptop. Should we ban all Microwave ovens because they produce interference? What about wireless phones that operate on the 2.4GHz band? Ignorance of FCC rules seems to be very common around here.
Both your wifi router and the microwave oven operate under part 15 of the FCC rules. Both must accept any interference that is received, even that which may cause undesired operation.
TV stations do not operate under part 15. They have a broadcast license which allows them legal protection from interference. White space devices are essentially throwing that out the window because I can guarantee that a lot of these devices will be completely deaf, will not detect any TV signal and interfere with people like me who have to put up high antennas to squeeze out the last bit of TV signal that reaches here.
White space devices == spectrum pollution.
But don't worry, Microsoft and Dell have the best Government that money can buy so you'll get your white space devices.
I have a mouser catalog and a soldering iron so don't complain when your white space device doesn't find a white space to work when I want to watch TV. Just like your stupid plasma TV spews interference, two can play at that game too. | |
|  |  |  |  |   60529262
join:2007-01-11 Chicago, IL
| Re: Trials in Montana? And you better not have any cheap compact fluorescent bulbs in your house if you want to use that "white space" device...
I find it funny that everyone talks about this being an unlicensed service but the trial is under an experimental license. Hmmm... | |
|  |   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT | Hmm.. If fluorescent bulbs create white space interference, what would it do to your TV? | |
|  | |  |
|
|