Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Add affirmative action to the bidding
The large companies got their cut, time to reserve space for smaller competitors. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| Agreed.
I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by ieolus  :I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them. It will be the unlicensed users that would be created by this groups advocacy that would cause the interference.
Google & the others makes a big deal about how spectrum sensing devices can allow all these devices to interact harmoniously in an unlicensed band of frequencies while not causing harm to nearby licensed frequencies. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China.
If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| That makes no sense in the light of WiFi equipment which is all in unlicensed spectrum.
But since WiFi doesn't directly threaten incumbunt broadband revenues, they don't interfere.
I guarantee if we saw a real third alternative to dsl/cable emerge in this unlicensed spectrum, we will see plenty of dirty tricks.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| of course they do
well duh - of course the incumbents want the spectrum licensed and auctioned - that way they can buy it up and keep competition from happening.
if the spectrum is unlicensed, they could face competition from new entrants, and we musn't have that. The incumbents' business model doesn't include competition. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to ieolus
Re: Add affirmative action to the bidding
I'm saying, let them license it, but set restrictions as to who can bid. For example, the bidder has to have less than X% market share. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :.. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China... you've said this before, so I'll say what I did before - there are these things called "standards". 802.11 seems to be working out OK.
For this to succeed, they have to set good standards that prevent interference. So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process, we'll see if they succeed or not. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by ieolus :I think if it stays unlicensed and the Google coalition does start providing cheap broadband to customers, the incumbents will flood the spectrum with interference to mess with them. It will be the unlicensed users that would be created by this groups advocacy that would cause the interference. Google & the others makes a big deal about how spectrum sensing devices can allow all these devices to interact harmoniously in an unlicensed band of frequencies while not causing harm to nearby licensed frequencies. But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China. If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns. Your inner shill is showing again. It's quite obvious the carriers want the spectrum licensed and auctioned so they can buy up it all up and sit on it in order to keep competitors out of the market. |
|
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| reply to nasadude
Re: of course they do
Seeing uncle sam auction off the white space and barring incumbents who own spectrum in region. What a pipe dream. They would sue, stomp and scream and reach deep in their pockets to pay off the right people to stop that idea.
I would love to see it happen. For once....the public not totally sold out.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
1 edit | This is not practical!
For most of this spectrum, this is not practical at all. Here's why:
The usage of this spectrum is not 'static'; instead it changes. New TV stations sign on, old ones move transmitter sites and channels, LPTV stations are always moving around, etc. Also, these channels are shared with itinerant users such as wireless microphones and medical instrumentation.
With all this changing all the time, adding this mishugas would only complicate things further. Besides, MORE of this spectrum can be used via unlicensed devices. Look at the B and G wireless bands for example. There are MILLIONS of devices that share this small patch of spectrum successfully. Would it make more sense to have but a few dozen licensed users here per city using this spectrum?
The answer is NO! |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to nasadude
Re: Add affirmative action to the bidding
said by nasadude :you've said this before, so I'll say what I did before - there are these things called "standards". 802.11 seems to be working out OK. For this to succeed, they have to set good standards that prevent interference. So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process, we'll see if they succeed or not. The standards have already been reduced before the first device has even been successfully tested. The television spectrum is too crowded for these things to ever work everywhere if the FCC actually against the wishes of the White Space Coalition ever approved the standards that assured they didn't interfere. If they were really interested in standards these devices would be restricted to the low VHF channels for the first ten years. The dirty little secret is that they hope everyone moves to cable or satellite and free TV dies. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to qworster
Re: This is not practical!
said by qworster :Look at the B and G wireless bands for example. There are MILLIONS of devices that share this small patch of spectrum successfully. Because they are all very low power and have a useful range measured in feet, not miles. And they are not sharing the band with some other established, distant service either.
I have no problem with Part 15 devices (very limited power, may not interfere) using the TV bands, but when you start trying to make broadband links over several miles or more there's going to be trouble. There aren't enough channels for everyone in a large area, for just the first thing. WiFi does OK with its few channels because of its limited range.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :For most of this spectrum, this is not practical at all. Here's why: The usage of this spectrum is not 'static'; instead it changes. New TV stations sign on, old ones move transmitter sites and channels, LPTV stations are always moving around, etc. Also, these channels are shared with itinerant users such as wireless microphones and medical instrumentation. Agreed the proponents of unlicensed white spaces act like LPTV doesn't exist and this would be the death knell for many stations. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to Sammer
Re: Add affirmative action to the bidding
said by Sammer :The dirty little secret is that they hope everyone moves to cable or satellite and free TV dies. Yes, it would be to Cable's (and satellite/FiOS/UVerse's) advantage if the new, competing free digital TV service didn't work so well. After all, that's how they built their business way back when, competing with crappy over-the-air analog signals.
And all the communication companies would LOVE to see all that gigantic, medium range VHF & UHF bandwidth relicensed to subscription services whether they are TV, phone, net or whatever.
Right now, thanks to some effort in putting up and aiming antennas, I have free digital TV with NO stream errors. I'm certain that will change if other devices using the band become common.
And no I don't work for a broadcaster, I'm just enjoying not having to pay the monopolistic, customer-hating cable company.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Sarcasm turned on! - Why don't we restrict each of the 210 TV markets to a maximum of twenty stations each. Limit them to maximum of 1 Kw on the seven high VHF channels and 50 Kw on 28 UHF channels. That will leave plenty of room for the unlicensed devices and the other 14 channels can be auctioned off for billions. - Sarcasm turned off! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to ieolus
It makes perfect sense. WiFi is confined to a tiny part of two bands where propagation is limited. There is intense interference between devices when more than about three or four try to occupy the same airspace (like in a large apartment or condo building). Which then leads to basically illegal modifications and power boosting to get past the interference a la CB radio. The WiFi devices are also confined to share space with other Part 15 devices.
The UHF TV band is entirely different.
As a practical matter, even if permitted, you'll never see any deployment in those "under-served" areas. There is no money it it or they would already be 'served'.
There is already a real third alternative to dsl/cable in unlicensed spectrum. They are called WISPs. See if you can find one and next time check your facts before posting.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :So far, the incumbents are doing their best to FUD up the process Not nearly as much as uninformed pro-white-space Internet "experts" have done to spread utterly false information.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Google
Google just wants to be able to build a network without having to pay high prices for the spectrum, while hamstringing its rivals by driving up prices in that auction... |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to qworster
Re: This is not practical!
sorry to burst your bubble, but there are radios being researched that will hunt for the whitespace and use it intelligently. example: if the 'whitespace' radio sees a tv station active, don't transmit in that block frequency range at the moment.
my guess (hope even) is that we won't see any radio using the 'whitespace' for a couple years since well defined standards (i think there is something in the works though...) are there yet, the fcc hasn't really taken a firm stance, but more importantly, there is still plenty of research and testing to do. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
| said by cornelius785 :sorry to burst your bubble, but there are radios being researched that will hunt for the whitespace and use it intelligently. example: if the 'whitespace' radio sees a tv station active, don't transmit in that block frequency range at the moment. my guess (hope even) is that we won't see any radio using the 'whitespace' for a couple years since well defined standards (i think there is something in the works though...) are there yet, the fcc hasn't really taken a firm stance, but more importantly, there is still plenty of research and testing to do. Oh, don't get me wrong, I support the concept...BUT keep it unlicensed. I don't want the 'big guys' licensing away the only REAL spectrum left that the public can actually USE!
Look at it this way...If you license it, technically it isn't "white space" any more, is it? |
|
