Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Big vote: FCC approves white-space Internet broadband

Obama won the election, but for technology, in the short run at least, the even bigger voting news was that the FCC, by a vote of five to zero, had unanimously approved the conditional unlicensed use of white-space television spectrum.

White space, the 700-MHz spectrum that's being freed up as TV channels switch from fat analog signals to thinner digital transmissions, has the potential to be used for many important uses. As Larry Page, co-founder of Google, wrote, "We will soon have "Wi-Fi on steroids" since these spectrum signals have much longer range than today's Wi-Fi technology and broadband access can be spread using fewer base stations resulting in better coverage at lower cost."

This is more though than just Wi-Fi on steroids. This is the opening of a new era of broadband. Today, most of us at home use either cable, DSL or, God help us, modems to connect with the Internet. Cable can be fast, but its speed is cut by the number of subscribers on any given line. DSL delivers OK performance, and as for modems, the less said the better.

Even as its best, cable at about 20Mbps, though today's Internet demands even more bandwidth. It's not just file-sharing with BitTorrent and the like that's grabbing bandwidth. We're moving to IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) with devices like the Apple TV, Netflix Player, and TiVo. Even the fastest Internet connections are stressed by 720p HDTV for these devices, and with 1080p HDTV just around the corner, our last mile bandwidth infrastructure simply isn't up to the challenge.

Besides just the technology limitations, the current broadband providers, like Comcast, are capping bandwidth. Just when users need more bandwidth, the providers are trying to cut the supply now.

Mobile WiMax is beginning to address some of those concerns. Sprint, with the support of Google and Intel, has started launching its Xohm network. We need more though and that's where the white space spectrum comes in.

700MHz signals have greater range and penetration than the higher frequencies used by Mobile WiMax and conventional Wi-Fi. After all, television stations have effective transmission ranges of dozens of miles as compared to a few miles, Mobile WiMax, or a hundred yards, Wi-Fi. This means that it will cost far less to build a white-space Internet last mile service since it requires far fewer antennas and ground-stations.

How fast will it be? We really don't know yet. It will depend on the implementations. I won't be surprised though to see multi-channel, MIMO (multiple-input and multiple-output,) white-space 'modems' in a few years delivering 40Mbps speed. As someone who now lives in western North Carolina and was raised in West Virginia, I really want to see this happen.

In the rural areas of the country any broadband can be impossible to get. Over a year ago I had to fight BellSouth, now AT&T, all the way up to the president's office to get a promised 3Mbps DSL connection. If I, who knows the Internet and datacomm backwards and forward, had to go to that much trouble, imagine what it must be like for a regular guy!

Besides just opening up rural areas for broadband, anything that delivers higher speed, and competes with the existing broadband providers with their caps and restrictions has to be a good thing. The U.S. has dropped to the second-tier of Internet using countries. It's time all of us were shifted up to faster Internet speeds and the freeing up of the 700Mhz spectrum will be a big help in that direction.

What People Are Saying

UFO ALIEN LIFE FORMS

HI THERE THIS IS THE MASTER CHIEF SPARTAN 117 ME THE BORG CORTANA WE REQIERE LOTS OF ENERGY AND DATA TOO KEEP US RUNING AND OUR ADVANCED LIFE SAVEING TECHNOLGY OPERATIONAL

Stick it to em

I don't live too far from Saginaw, Michigan and the ONLY cable company in the area wouldn't run cable here 8 years ago because they were too lazy and didnt want to run it under the house. They also told us we were too far off the road which we are less than 300 feet from (280-290 give or take); I have been told the maximum distance is 350 feet by numerous customers. I want to know when this is going down because I really want to shove it in their faces.

High-Tech Rednecks

So what exactly what does this mean for us technology-deprived people who live back in the sticks of East Tennessee? Currently, I have two choices - $80/month Satellite connection or dial-up. Both options are awful. I live 60 miles from the nearest TV tower. So am I to understand that this new signal can reach me? Also wouldnโ€™t that require my laptop to have a modem that could transmit back to that same tower.....over 60 miles? Sounds far-fetched to me, but I really hope that it's true. Some of us hillbillies (aka High-Tech Rednecks) are educated and need broadband access to the internet too!!!!

White Space Device Not Just for Broadband

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Voyant-International-Corporation-917727.html

These guys are already manufacturing commercial-grade spectrum-sensing white space radio device not just for broadband, but also innovative uses such as long-range radio control of devices and data transmissions.

Think smart traffic signals that's solar-powered with LED signal lights, with software-defined signal processing, video streaming of traffic conditions, image/on-ground traffic sensors, automated with central control and central data processing. ALL WIRELESS and GREEN!

It's about time!

I'm sure none of the opponents to this vote are connecting (on a good day) at 16.4Kbps when the modem feels like connecting at all.

That's what I was used to for the first 5 years of living in "Rural America". Thankfully, 2 years ago a WISP put an antenna on a grain tower two miles away and I became blessed with my blistering fast 512K for $50/mo., that usually works well if it's not raining.

My local telco (Verizon) has laughed at me for years because I was 600 feet too far away from a DSL connection, and my copper wires circa 1955 from the old GTE North were multiplexed, so I would get disconnected from the internet when my neighbors phone rang.

Or how about 10 or so years ago when all the major players where given huge government incentives to put the Fiber Optic infrastructure down? The day the guys came and tore up my yard to run the conduit through they laughed when I asked them when it would be available in my area...Their answer? "This is just passing through, it doesn't terminate until it gets to Detroit"
Now I'm stuck with a big ugly and abandoned junction box in my yard, and my drainage hasn't been right yet.

Personally I hope this drives the telco's as crazy as it's driving Dolly Parton and the broadcasters. Oh, and to my WISP, sounds like you might have some competition coming to town!

Oh, and how's this for "Rural" irony - My place of employment has a full T1 pipe installed, and they where more than happy to allow me to install a wireless link to the building which I can see the roof of from my house. I spent the better part of the Spring of 2004 spending several hundred dollars on some really nice used wireless equipment, with outdoor boxes, high gain Yagi's, learning Fresnel zones, security practices, yada yada yada...And it worked AWESOME. I had full access to 1.5MB T1 right in my living room! For free! Then came July and I was starting to have serious problems with it. By August, I had no connection any more. The culprit? The corn in the field between my house and work had grown to tall!

White Space a boon for consumers

I thoroughly disagree with most of you making comments here. This is a revolution in the spectrum and will lead to massive innovation and tremendous value for the customer. The only, and I mean the only reason the broadcasters are against this is because they don't want to compete with it. First thing they were saying way back is that it would decrease quality by allowing other systems, but let that be up to the free market. Secondly, its seems to me that Google is more concerned with opening up the market which is always a good thing. Who needs the broadcasters anyway.

A completely one-sided

A completely one-sided report. No mention whatsoever of the problems that will inevitably appear due to interference from unlimited unlicensed devices.

While this decision by the five-member FCC panel will benefit some (primarily Microsoft, Google, Motorola, etc.), the benefits will come at the expense of those who rely on existing licensed services.

The FCC panel has unwisely dismissed the concerns of industry experts and engineers. Some of the arguments against unlimited unlicensed use of white space can be found at:

http://www.mstv.org/congcom.php

Time will tell just how widespread and severe interference problems will be.

Are you kidding?

If you believe this report to be biased, then look up the rest of the facts. This is the "internet" we have "search engines."

Aside from insulting you, which is a childish maneuver that has no bases on the rest of my reply, I do actually have something decent to say.

First, The link you gave us has reports from around 2 years ago. If you want to sway our opinions, and by all means go ahead it is your right, then try to get more recent information.

Second, these are prototypes. Do you honestly think that everyone is so idiotic that they won't think of a way to fix any interference issues? Do you think they will Ignore interference issues? This is just the beginning, if such things pop up it will be taken care of.

Also you may want to note that the unused white space is, in fact, unused. It may be silly for me to say, I know, but apparently I have to. These "unlimited devices" are for white space only, if they intersect with currently used waves then that is not an issue with the FCC's decision.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you are concerned about possible interference between these upcoming devices. And I believe there is not enough evidence to give any clear solution to this problem. In fact there has yet to be enough evidence to show that this is a problem.
If there is then I have not heard about it.

Oh and to all the posters talking about the microphones: forget them. They're microphones, ooooh. Let's see... devices using white space... doesn't that include those microphones? Well guess what, the internet is more important then if your favorite singer has to buy a different kind of microphone or not.

Dear "Anonymous", I don't

Dear "Anonymous",

I don't believe the report is intentionally biased. I only state that it does not address or even mention any of the interference problems that will occur. If the post appeared disrespectful to the author, I apologize. This was not my intent.

To address your first point, the facts in these reports are as valid today as they were when they were published. To my knowledge, nothing substantial has changed. I hope to learn new information to the contrary.

As for your second point, I must respectfully suggest that your position is naive. Manufacturers will rush these products to market, as they are not required to ensure interference-free operation. Once these devices are wide-spread, there will be no way to recall them. Ever. Hoping a solution will be found after the problem has been created is not sound reasoning.

You state "Also you may want to note that the unused white space is, in fact, unused". No, it is not. It is currently being used by devices that have been purchased by licensed operators at considerable expense. This is why this debate exists. And if the new unlicensed devices radiate into adjacent, reserved frequencies, (which they will in urban areas as they proliferate), digital television reception could be compromised as well. Those who have invested in equipment that uses this once-regulated FCC bandwidth and have obtained licenses from the FCC to operate this equipment legally have a legitimate grievance.

The only statements you make that I agree with are "I believe there is not enough evidence to give any clear solution to this problem" and "This is just the beginning".

Finally, your flippant attitude towards existing, expensive, licensed UHF devices (not just microphones) that must now share this space with unlimited, unregulated consumer products does not help promote your position. Any legitimately licensed transmitter or receiver in this section of the UHF band could be adversely affected.

In any event, although I believe it was premature and short-sighted, the FCC panel has made its decision.

Oh, and no...I am not kidding.

The opposition

This is a short column giving my take on it, which is indeed a firm thumbs-up.

I have looked at all those other concerns from 'industry experts' who all seem to be hired by the media companies and the other side. Frankly, I don't think their case holds water. It also annoys me that they waited until the 11th hour before trying to stop it. If was that bad why weren't they trying harder, earlier to KO the opening of white space?

Steven