Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category White Space Device Testing Runs Into Trouble
NAB takes additional shots at possible competitors...
(old news - 09:06AM Tuesday Feb 12 2008)
tags: competition · fcc · business · wireless
The FCC recently announced (pdf) that the agency would be conducting another round of "White Space" broadband testing starting January 24. A six-partner coalition (including Microsoft, Google and Dell) named the Wireless Innovation Alliance wants to use the so-called "white space" spectrum -- partially freed by the migration to digital television -- to offer un-served consumers Internet access via the airwaves.

Click for full size
The companies submitted a device for testing to the FCC last year, but tests showed the device was unable to play nice (pdf) with nearby wireless signals.

Shortly after the test, the coalition stated that their prototype malfunctioned, and that they do have a working model. Groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, likely feeling threatened by the new potential broadcast capabilities of the technology, have been very vocal opponents of the plan, insisting to anyone who'll listen that the devices will create wireless armageddon.

This morning the Associated Press reports that the devices ran into trouble yet again during testing. NAB seems to be celebrating the problems, stating they only support their claim that the devices will cause interference. Microsoft and company say that the devices ran into power problems that were unrelated to interference:
The FCC contacted the coalition Wednesday after the device lost power, but Ferrell said once the device cooled down it started to work again properly. In the meantime, the FCC began testing on a second identical device submitted by Microsoft. Edmond Thomas, who represents the technology coalition, said there is no correlation between a test device and a final commercial product, which would address power issues.
The coalition hopes ultimately that such devices will be used to deliver inexpensive broadband access, particularly to rural areas.

Related:
  1. Google Launches White Space Broadband Website
  2. FCC Will Vote On Pending Mergers On Election Day
  3. FCC Engineers Say White Space Broadband Works
  4. Clearwire CEO: FCC Approval Would Be 'Good Policy.'
  5. White House Opposes Free Wireless Broadband Plan
  6. NAB Sues FCC Over White Space Broadband
  7. WSJ: AT&T Is Dying
  8. FCC Votes To Investigate Wireless Industry
Forums » White Space Device Testing Runs Into Trouble
view: topics flat text 
Post a:
hugheshostag

join:2008-01-14
Suffolk, VA

Hurry up

Get this going fast so everybody can say bye bye to Hughes Net

Southernman

@direcpc.com

Re: Hurry up

I wish I could buy you a cup of coffee, so we could discuss the uselessness of hughes, at least for the money that we spend on it each month. Microsoft being involved though may not be a good sign....

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ

2 Strikes; 3 Strikes and they're out

That is 2 strikes against the companies that want to use the white spaces between TV channels. 1 more strike and they may not get another chance.

IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley

Re: 2 Strikes; 3 Strikes and they're out

That colition isn't the only player in the device market for this spectrum. Motorola and others have devices that have faired better in the testing I think.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

That is 2 strikes against the companies that want to use the white spaces between TV channels. 1 more strike and they may not get another chance.
How does a power failure (ie The equivalent of unplugging the device) equate to it failing to detect other broadcasts and avoiding their frequencies? The article states that the device's power source overheated and shut itself down until it cooled off (at which point it resumed working [ie: Its Circuit breaker reset]). While it was functioning [ie: Was powered up] it worked 100%.

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online

Scary

It sounds like interesting technology but the fact that a malfunctioning unit can wreak havoc should make this technology a non-starter. After all, even if they get a working model, who is going to guarantee with 100% certainty that none of the devices will malfunction in the hands of the public and not wipe out terrestrial TV in the geographic area around the bad device? Even a failure rate of .01% on a million-plus units is still one hundred units that could cause problems. This technology has to work flawlessly every time all the time or it will be a problem.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: Scary

Not just scary but having cheap unlicensed mobile devices like this share broadcast spectrum is a bad idea in the first place because there will be malfunctioning devices. Some of the devices will undoubtedly make it across international borders causing even more problems. If this was really about providing rural broadband then we would be talking about fixed location devices using white spaces in areas where there is no possibility of interference.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Scary

Fearmongering, what a quaint strategy.

The real reason is the studios are afraid that people will be able to use the devices to access their premium content like ... NASCAR Total Access where they charge 10 bucks a month or whatever to be able to get different viewing angles and access to the in car cameras. And lots of SPAM.

So basically they want the spectrum, and anyone else who wants to utilize it is unwelcome competition.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

Re: Scary

said by gaforces See Profile :

Fearmongering, what a quaint strategy.

The real reason is the studios are afraid that people will be able to use the devices to access their premium content like ... NASCAR Total Access where they charge 10 bucks a month or whatever to be able to get different viewing angles and access to the in car cameras. And lots of SPAM.

So basically they want the spectrum, and anyone else who wants to utilize it is unwelcome competition.
I believe that the reason the NAB is against use of whitespace is because broadcasters have millions of dollars invested in wireless equipment (cameras, communication systems, microphones, etc) that already use this spectrum. The wireless mics I currently have operate on this spectrum and would probably be subject to interference. If they're useless, it would cost me about $3000 to replace them. That's just 6 mics...
cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

Re: Scary

i highly doubt your microphones operate in that same spectrum as these 'white space' devices would mainly based on the fact that they could never get certification from the fcc to operate in the already used TV bands. my guess it that your microphones operate in an ISM band. plus the the white space devices should be aware that some small range of frequencies is being used and should not transmit in that range.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest


2 edits

Re: Scary

Wireless microphones are licensed as Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the TV bands. See 47 CFR 74.801-882.

Operating term here: Licensed.

Link to rules for your reference.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

said by cornelius785 See Profile :

i highly doubt your microphones operate in that same spectrum as these 'white space' devices would mainly based on the fact that they could never get certification from the fcc to operate in the already used TV bands. my guess it that your microphones operate in an ISM band. plus the the white space devices should be aware that some small range of frequencies is being used and should not transmit in that range.
I highly doubt you have any idea what you're talking about...

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
I haven't seen where the testing confirmed any interference.
If they do interfere with licensed spectrum, then they shouldn't be approved.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Do you have anything to back that up?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA


1 edit

Re: Scary

One of the earlier threads on this subject had some info on a stadium that was using, or had plans to use the spectrum for premium event coverage.
Looks like most the broadcasters are using Sprint to broadcast ATM. They could probably save a bundle if they could do it themselves.
NFL has the Total Access, NASCAR has the TrackPass »www.nascar.com/trackpass/
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Scary

There is nothing there to validate your accusation of "fearmongering".

The users in that spectrum are licensed whether they are a broadcast TV station or Low Power Auxilliary Stations. This discussion conveniently omits that fact. This "white space" initiative is an attempt to grab spectrum without proper engineering justification.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

2 edits

Re: Scary

Aren't the "white space" areas between the channels that TV stations have license for?
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Re: Scary

The white space areas are channels that have no local broadcast station licensed on them, but they are rarely completely unused. The TV channels themselves have no "spaces" between them.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Scary

So they were established as buffer channels to prevent bleed-over. The low power stations don't interfere, but these devices will?
I don't see why they cant share, which will win, broadcast hogs, or bandwidth hogs?
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Scary

There are no 'buffer channels'. The Low Power Auxiliary Stations are on assigned frequencies, have strict requirements for equipment performance and are licensed. They are also operated by professionals. That is a lot different than what has been proposed with these so-called "white space" devices.

It is not a matter of sharing. It is about preventing another CB debacle.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
you can apply that to ANY radio transmitter, not just the 'white space' devices. i don't see how that point is valid in this context.
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage


4 edits
said by n2jtx See Profile :

It sounds like interesting technology but the fact that a malfunctioning unit can wreak havoc should make this technology a non-starter. After all, even if they get a working model, who is going to guarantee with 100% certainty that none of the devices will malfunction in the hands of the public and not wipe out terrestrial TV in the geographic area around the bad device? Even a failure rate of .01% on a million-plus units is still one hundred units that could cause problems. This technology has to work flawlessly every time all the time or it will be a problem.
Bull S*it! HDTV spectrum is so poorly allotted that on the average, 25% of it is vacant ("white space"). Even in NYC, the most spectrum congested place in the entire world, the amount of white space is almost 20% As an example, there are ONLY 29 HDTV stations on channels 5 and six in the entire United States! Compare this to about 200 NTSC ones there now and you can see that vast areas of the USA will have channels 5 and 6 wide open after 2/2009! As an example, there is no HD channel six loocated in all of California!

Why shouldn't this be used by us? After all, it's OUR freaking spectrum, NOT the NAB's!

The NAB is a lobbying group, headed by a former beer distributor. Their $$ comes from Broadcast TV stations. Is there any doubt who they are going to advocate for (hint: it ain't us!)?

Let me clue you into something. It's EASY to make a device that looks for a carrier on frequency before it transmits. EVERY el cheapo ten dollar wifi router doers this already. Even older, there have been devices that hunt for carriers and automatically stop when they find them. They're called scanners and they've been out about 40 years! This technology is NOT new, it's SO OLD that it's almost an antique!

A malfuncitioning electrical device can KILL someone. In fact they do-many people every year die due to electrocution. Using your logic, we should ban the use of electricity!

(Disclaimer: I am a TV/Radio Engineer with over 30 years of experience)
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: Scary

said by qworster See Profile :

HDTV spectrum is so poorly allotted that on the average, 25% of it is vacant ("white space"). Even in NYC, the most spectrum congested place in the entire world, the amount of white space is almost 20% As an example, there are ONLY 29 HDTV stations on channels 5 and six in the entire United States! Compare this to about 200 NTSC ones there now and you can see that vast areas of the USA will have channels 5 and 6 wide open after 2/2009!
You're right that it's poorly allotted but that's because there shouldn't be any digital television stations on 5 and 6. Also channels 14 through 20 are shared (with public safety) spectrum in places like NYC and channel 37 is reserved for non-TV use. If these devices were only for use on channels 5 and 6 there wouldn't be many complaints from broadcasters about them but good luck getting through the noise.
cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
i agree, there is a lot of empty space in the spectrum, especially the TV spectrum. as far as i know, the HDTV signal is fairly robust to interference, expect for the pilot carrier.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest

Good god. You are a TV/Radio Engineer and are that clueless as to the basic physics of the technology you are using? You should know at least the basics of channel allocation, and by now should know how silly it is to continue broadcasting TV of any kind on low-VHF. Or high-VHF for that matter. ATSC TV works just fine in the UHF band and any sane broadcaster is going to implement ATSC television up there due to the smaller antenna space requirements if nothing else. Give 54-88 MHz to land mobile uses and 174-216 MHz to wireless Internet on a primary basis, but your understanding of how this all works is shockingly weak.

By the way, if it so easy to design a properly functioning "white space" device, why are they having such a hard time getting it right? I suppose the NAB is sabotaging the designs?

I've been in this business for 33 years. Some of what I do is tracking down interference to broadcast signals. I guess I should embrace this new "white space" initiative as my early retirement fund, because the way it's proposed right now I'll have more work than I can handle.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: Scary

Wait till the white space proponents find out that the final FCC rules will probably restrict these cheap devices from being used on up to 20 of the 50 channels. They won't see so many white spaces in major metro areas then.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Scary

Yep. A lot of those "white spaces" are already used by land mobile licensees, and I doubt the licensed two-way users will appreciate someone's Part 15 Internet porn connection interfering with what could be emergency communications.

And seriously, who really believes this is about bringing high speed internet to under-served areas?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: Scary

RadioDoc, do you think any stations will go to elliptical polarization as a defensive strategy?
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Re: Scary

I doubt it would make much difference unless the receiving antenna were similarly polarized.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage

said by RadioDoc See Profile :

Good god. You are a TV/Radio Engineer and are that clueless as to the basic physics of the technology you are using? You should know at least the basics of channel allocation, and by now should know how silly it is to continue broadcasting TV of any kind on low-VHF. Or high-VHF for that matter. ATSC TV works just fine in the UHF band and any sane broadcaster is going to implement ATSC television up there due to the smaller antenna space requirements if nothing else. Give 54-88 MHz to land mobile uses and 174-216 MHz to wireless Internet on a primary basis, but your understanding of how this all works is shockingly weak.

By the way, if it so easy to design a properly functioning "white space" device, why are they having such a hard time getting it right? I suppose the NAB is sabotaging the designs?

I've been in this business for 33 years. Some of what I do is tracking down interference to broadcast signals. I guess I should embrace this new "white space" initiative as my early retirement fund, because the way it's proposed right now I'll have more work than I can handle.
You are correct about DTV in low band VHF, but 100% INcorrect about DTV on high band VHF. It turns out that high band is the BEST place to run a DTV station.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Scary

There is a puny 42 MHz of spectrum from channel 7 to 13. Not nearly enough to get the job done. UHF works fine and the antennas are a lot smaller both on the transmit and receive end. Not sure where you are getting your information from.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

RF Dave

@mindspring.com

VHF Hi Band (174-216 MHz) is prime real estate for HDTV. You can use solid-state amplifiers for high power, not possible with UHF, where you have to use Klystrodes, etc.

The main problem with these unlicensed devices is the fact that the FCC failed to mandate a receiver standard for HD TV sets. The HD tuners already in homes are very cheaply made and are quite vulnerable to 3rd order intermod interference. These unlicensed devices can cause interference to TV stations several channels over, not just on the co-channel.

This guy has done the math, and it ain't pretty:

»www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.007···092.html

justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL

Power and heat problems?

The device must be based on the Xbox 360.

asdfdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

This is just hysterical nonsense.

The idea that devices have to prove that they are 100% fail proof before development can continue is nonsense. Lots of devices can cause interference and devices often fail. Point of sale terminals in stores can go bad and start interfering. In fact it has happened in the past where emergency frequencies have tracked down problems to malfunctioning terminals. We don't go off on a crusade to eradicate all devices. Lots of devices cause local interference problems. That is as common as dirt. Just because we don't hear endless hysterical ranting about the end of the world doesn't mean that it isn't happening everywhere as we sit here and post.

This latest failure wasn't even a failure in the question that the device was submitted to study, namely interference potential. It was an unrelated hardware failure in powering the device. Saying that any failure proves that the device shouldn't continue development is a standard that would bring capitalism to a dead stop.

This is simply an asinine standard that, if followed, would end all technological development and would require all present devices, from automobiles to microwaves to clock radios, to have to be removed from the market.

Of course this product isn't ready for "prime time". It's a prototype. It isn't a finished product being released tomorrow to the market. It was intended to test for interference issues. Complaining that it isn't functioning perfectly is as stupid as complaining that an 1900 automobile doesn't run as well as a 2008 honda civic hybrid.

You have to start somewhere people. Technology evolves and is refined. It doesn't just fall out of the sky one day in its perfect and final form. NO technology has EVER met the absurd criteria that opponents are trying to establish.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: This is just hysterical nonsense.

said by asdfdfdfdfdf :

Complaining that it isn't functioning perfectly is as stupid as complaining that an 1900 automobile doesn't run as well as a 2008 honda civic hybrid.

You have to start somewhere people. Technology evolves and is refined. It doesn't just fall out of the sky one day in its perfect and final form. NO technology has EVER met the absurd criteria that opponents are trying to establish.
If you design a Yugo to run on railroad tracks it's going to run like a Yugo on railroad tracks.

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

said by asdfdfdfdfdf :

Of course this product isn't ready for "prime time". It's a prototype. It isn't a finished product being released tomorrow to the market. It was intended to test for interference issues. Complaining that it isn't functioning perfectly is as stupid as complaining that an 1900 automobile doesn't run as well as a 2008 honda civic hybrid.
When you test a prototype in a lab, it's not ready for prime time. When you have the FCC test your device for interference, you must think that you're at least close to release.
Forums » White Space Device Testing Runs Into Trouble


Saturday, 28-Nov 21:38:17 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.