Microsoft's Rural Broadband Strategy - UHF

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
Microsoft is planning to get 23 million Americans left behind, in terms of broadband, online by 2022. The technology boils down to taking advantage of unused UHF television spectrum bands. Yeah, you old guys remember the knob on the bottom!

Our call for a new strategy reflects in part our own experience as a company working around the world to make use of what’s called TV White Spaces spectrum. This is unused spectrum in the UHF television bands. This powerful bandwidth is in the 600 MHz frequency range and enables wireless signals to travel over hills and through buildings and trees. It’s why people could watch television programs in rural communities long before the advent of satellite television. Microsoft itself has considerable experience with this spectrum, having deployed 20 TV white spaces projects in 17 countries that have served 185,000 users.

Modems for this tech right now cost around a thousand bucks, but Microsoft thinks they can get the cost down to about $200.
 
Last edited:
(sigh) no pilot in Indiana. Really wish someone would come and offer service other than satellite companies. I have DSL, but its through Frontier...and the service is absolutely awful.
 
Over the air HD used/uses UHF, but the TVs have no knobs. Get of my airwaves digital kiddies!
 
leathco016 said:
(sigh) no pilot in Indiana. Really wish someone would come and offer service other than satellite companies. I have DSL, but its through Frontier...and the service is absolutely awful.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too struggle with my internet. They keep teasing me with promises of 1 Gig internet, but I will struggle along with this for now. :D



OK, I'm an asshole, I'll show myself out....but in all seriousness I have experience with WildBlue/DirecWay (Now Exede/Hughesnet) and I think they compete with each other to see who can suck more.
 
Sircolby45 said:
Yes, I too struggle with my internet. They keep teasing me with promises of 1 Gig internet, but I will struggle along with this for now. :D



OK, I'm an asshole, I'll show myself out....but in all seriousness I have experience with WildBlue/DirecWay (Now Hughesnet/Exede) and I think they compete with each other to see who can suck more.
Click to expand...

All that download and that upload? What a joke. I hate when ISPs restrict our upload, it's bullshit, if I want to stream my 4K home security system then let me fucking do it!
 
2000?
I applaud their efforts but the people who need it most are rural customers out in the country which is also too far from broadcast TV signals.
Googles idea of having a blimp would work here but Google seems to want to help other countries and not the USA

This has got me triggered.
If you are able to receive OTA signal (around 30 mile range) you are more then likely to be in the DSL or Cable areas. Those in the 30+ mile range are SOL and this idea will not cover the number of people that they think it will cover. Back in the day we had a 90' antenna tower to receive stations from Memphis. (120 miles away) Now that its all digital we cannot receive OTA anymore and had to get satellite.
 
Last edited:
They will pitch it as something low income people need, after all they need cell phones, why not internet? So they will go with hands out to government to support getting 28 million people access to internet, at the cost of just a few hundred billion, which they will get. Towers will be put up, but the "tech" will cost WAY more than expected and will go back to the government, who will give them more money, at this point they will have about 10-15% of the 28 million people covered at a fraction of the speeds they claimed, use the remaining white space to sell over priced internet to those who don't qualify in those areas, then call it a success and hope people forget they got government funding for it in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isnt this a repeat from a post from yesterday?
To summarize, what's missing is the speed. They compare this solution utilizing 600 mhz unused uhf spectrum, but there's nothing in the summary about speeds, yet they compare it directly (at least in costs) to a 4G solution.
I had to look way into the white paper link (That's a white paper? It really more looks and reads like a brochure) to find out what exactly they're talking about.
They want to utilize 802.11af using the 600-700mhz uhf band for a estimated throughput of 400mbit. They also mentioned 10 watt base antennas and 4 watt transceivers at the homes they want to deliver broadband to.
There's some glaring issues. One is that 802.11af doesn't exist. They're hoping with enough incentives that 802.11af hardware can become mainstream in 2 years with subsidies from the government.
Two, I honestly don't see why 4G can't be utilized and changed a bit for long distances thus bringing down the price as well as the cost aspect has mainly to do with the towers involved. Since rural areas are a lot less dense than urban areas, the congestion of towers needs to be redesigned. I'd actually suggest a 4G mesh network. Higher power transmitters with direct line of sight to branch towers that will reduce the backbone costs with the only side effect being some added latency. You wouldn't need new imaginary hardware to support this effort either. You could use a whole swath of existing equipment.

Also there are 4g bands in lte that exist in the 700mhz and 850mhz range already.
 
I live and work in one of these aforementioned "rural" areas. Yes our internet sucks. What MS is missing however is that there are a number of companies already doing what they're proposing (close to it anyway) and while it does "work" it is not anything near a long term solution. I live in Nebraska which is what most would consider to be pretty "flat" (maybe not quite as flat as southern kansas or oklahoma but close). The problem is that most of the "flat" ground is bottom ground which signal doesn't propagate out of worth a shit. So unless they're planning on putting towers every half mile their plan isn't going to work.

Overall it's another one of those blue sky "works great on paper" things that when it gets hit with some cold hard reality, falls on it's face.
 
U-238 said:
I live and work in one of these aforementioned "rural" areas. Yes our internet sucks. What MS is missing however is that there are a number of companies already doing what they're proposing (close to it anyway) and while it does "work" it is not anything near a long term solution. I live in Nebraska which is what most would consider to be pretty "flat" (maybe not quite as flat as southern kansas or oklahoma but close). The problem is that most of the "flat" ground is bottom ground which signal doesn't propagate out of worth a shit. So unless they're planning on putting towers every half mile their plan isn't going to work.

Overall it's another one of those blue sky "works great on paper" things that when it gets hit with some cold hard reality, falls on it's face.
Click to expand...

I live in NE, too. Fortunately, I can choose between shitty and expensive Cox broadband or shitty and expensive CenturyLink broadband. If our corrupt unicameral would actually allow more than a couple companies in to compete, then you'd probably have fuckin' GB Fiber running to your front door by now.
 
I'm sure this has agenda behind it, with their whole Windows as a service thing and wanting everyone constantly connected to them and their cloud. But it's still a cool idea, good luck getting past all the lobbying and big ISP corporations however. It will be a cold day in hell before they let anyone disrupt their regional monopolies.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Has Microsoft talked to Weird Al about this? There was even a documentary film about his experience in the UHF field.
Click to expand...

Somehow I missed that movie for 28 years but saw it on Comet TV a few months ago.... I want that 1.5 hrs back.
 
Sparky said:
2000?
I applaud their efforts but the people who need it most are rural customers out in the country which is also too far from broadcast TV signals.
Googles idea of having a blimp would work here but Google seems to want to help other countries and not the USA

This has got me triggered.
If you are able to receive OTA signal (around 30 mile range) you are more then likely to be in the DSL or Cable areas. Those in the 30+ mile range are SOL and this idea will not cover the number of people that they think it will cover. Back in the day we had a 90' antenna tower to receive stations from Memphis. (120 miles away) Now that its all digital we cannot receive OTA anymore and had to get satellite.
Click to expand...


I wish [H] provided a bit more info in the title, because no one is ever going to read an article around here. I saw this post elsewhere and this bit of useful info (from the article linked) gives a better explanation.

Specifically, TV white spaces will provide the best approach to reach the 80 percent of this underserved rural population that live in communities with a population density between two and 200 people per square mile. Satellite coverage should be used for areas with a population density of less than two people per square mile, and fixed wireless and limited fiber to the home should be used for communities with a density greater than 200 people per square mile.
Click to expand...


Here's the deal though. When TV transmitter towers were placed, they were placed in a location specifically designed to cover the urban / metro area so that most people in that area could get TV reception. This is going to be exact opposite of that. Towers will be placed in no man's land to cover areas with 2 - 200 people / Sq mile. That said don't expect a 30 mile range out of this. TV is one way communication, so nothing needs to be sent back to the tower. Internet is two way communication so expect tower placement much closer to cell tower patterns than TV antenna patterns. FYI 120 miles isn't actually possible in most scenarios because of the curvature of the earth. Most places expect it even UHF in TV to start dropping out at ~60 miles or so. About the only time it can go farther is when the terrain is favorable. (IE, the transmitter is on top of a mountain)



Hypergreatthing: I'd agree that 4G probably makes more sense, but I believe this is unlicensed spectrum so anyone can make use of it. So you wouldn't be able to transmit using a signal that doesn't play nicely with other signals used on the same frequency. The only bad thing is MU-MIMO for 802.11ac is still quite infant, so I question that af is going to be better than LTE at spectrum reuse. Those 4W transmitters should provide a huge amount of power back to the tower, and I'd imagine it's either going to be yagi directional or just parabolic dishes. With enough height you'd think that a 5 - 10 mile radius on a tower might be possible, so it would cover a decent chunk of people even with only 10 people / sq mile. It's probably all speculation because the problem side is going to be making sure that the old TV mast is now also being used for internet in order to make sure you have LOS back to the tower.
 
bman212121 said:
Hypergreatthing: I'd agree that 4G probably makes more sense, but I believe this is unlicensed spectrum so anyone can make use of it. So you wouldn't be able to transmit using a signal that doesn't play nicely with other signals used on the same frequency. The only bad thing is MU-MIMO for 802.11ac is still quite infant, so I question that af is going to be better than LTE at spectrum reuse. Those 4W transmitters should provide a huge amount of power back to the tower, and I'd imagine it's either going to be yagi directional or just parabolic dishes. With enough height you'd think that a 5 - 10 mile radius on a tower might be possible, so it would cover a decent chunk of people even with only 10 people / sq mile. It's probably all speculation because the problem side is going to be making sure that the old TV mast is now also being used for internet in order to make sure you have LOS back to the tower.
Click to expand...
I just wish there was a law that says if the spectrum isn't being used in any given area, it can be reclaimed and repurposed in that area for service (this is essentially what this tv frequency utilization is). They can also allow for the locally built towers to be bought over by carriers who use those frequencies in the future for the cost of building the towers and the carriers must allow whoever is using the tower to become a nvmo of their service if they so choose to build that tower for an extremely low cost.
This would be a win-win for everyone involved.
I'm not sure exactly what the cost breakdown of the cell towers are. I assume that there is a high cost for the backbone data trunks to the towers in rural areas. Thus if they adopted a direct line of sight piggyback for the data trunks, it would lower the costs drastically.
 
Sircolby45 said:
Yes, I too struggle with my internet. They keep teasing me with promises of 1 Gig internet, but I will struggle along with this for now. :D



OK, I'm an asshole, I'll show myself out....but in all seriousness I have experience with WildBlue/DirecWay (Now Exede/Hughesnet) and I think they compete with each other to see who can suck more.
Click to expand...
Being fair exede and Hughes have come a long way since those days. They really aren't recognizable compared to what they were. They are both on gen 4/5 now offering 25 Meg speeds with not utterly horrible pricing. Don't get me wrong, they aren't great but if your choice is 1-3mb DSL that barely works or cell phones. They are the better alternative or at minimum competitive.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Being fair exede and Hughes have come a long way since those days. They really aren't recognizable compared to what they were. They are both on gen 4/5 now offering 25 Meg speeds with not utterly horrible pricing. Don't get me wrong, they aren't great but if your choice is 1-3mb DSL that barely works or cell phones. They are the better alternative or at minimum competitive.
Click to expand...

The problem with them is the data caps, they are very low, top end being what, 50GB? After that speeds see a huge hit, one of my friends after that cap sees 200kbps and under. But like you said better than nothing if you have no other options, if those caps didn't exist, it really would not be bad at all.
 
BlueFireIce said:
The problem with them is the data caps, they are very low, top end being what, 50GB? After that speeds see a huge hit, one of my friends after that cap sees 200kbps and under. But like you said better than nothing if you have no other options, if those caps didn't exist, it really would not be bad at all.
Click to expand...

Which is why I compared them to cell phones. In those area's that is basically their competition. That said at least it throttles and doesn't flat cut off like it used too. Also the current generation of both as of April this year guarantee a minimum 3mb connection after the data cap. Gotta be on the latest equipment though as it is a new satellite.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Being fair exede and Hughes have come a long way since those days. They really aren't recognizable compared to what they were. They are both on gen 4/5 now offering 25 Meg speeds with not utterly horrible pricing. Don't get me wrong, they aren't great but if your choice is 1-3mb DSL that barely works or cell phones. They are the better alternative or at minimum competitive.
Click to expand...

I have family that has Hughesnet and Exede. They are both still trash. Improved? Meh...slightly, but still trash. More of a polished turd. Sure they can spit out a decent speed test, but in actual usage they are sluggish at best. The Hughesnet connection will show 45 down in a speed test and then buffer on a 480p Youtube video on a brand new satellite. The traffic shaping is atrocious.
 
Sircolby45 said:
I have family that has Hughesnet and Exede. They are both still trash. Improved? Meh...slightly, but still trash. More of a polished turd. Sure they can spit out a decent speed test, but in actual usage they are sluggish at best. The Hughesnet connection will show 45 down in a speed test and then buffer on a 480p Youtube video on a brand new satellite. The traffic shaping is atrocious.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like an equipment problem. I may not like either service. But I know from first hand experience how it runs. It is not cable, but it's sure better than DSL over shitty phone lines. It can stream 720 just fine.. 1080 tho, nah it buffers like a bitch.
 
Sorry MS, if you wanted to get into this you should of bid on the spectrum that was being auctioned offed. You didn't so good luck. the white space you talk about most likely can't be used because all broadcast, LPTV, and translators are stuck using channels under 38. They get to claim anything under that and not cause interference with other channels in that area. Guess they don't know about co-channel interference. The over the air TV group has been screwed so many times in the past. they will make you pay for this. again GL
 
I could have sworn we were all paying $5/mo on our phone bills for DECADES to pay for Fiber to the Home that never happened. Verizon and other Bells pocketed $200+ BILLION in free money .... how about we get that Fiber now?
 
leathco016 said:
(sigh) no pilot in Indiana. Really wish someone would come and offer service other than satellite companies. I have DSL, but its through Frontier...and the service is absolutely awful.
Click to expand...

That sounds on par with all the Frontier areas I know in Indiana. what quadrant of Indiana are you in? NW, NE, SW or SE?
 
I'm about to be in internet hell. =(

I currently have 1GB fiber here in Hawaii which of course is dreamy. However, I am moving to Olalla, Washington next week. While looking at houses to buy we found one we really loved with 5 acres of land. While talking to the owners I made it a point to ask them if high-speed internet was available. He confidently said "Yes". Bought the house and it closed almost 2 weeks ago. So I start calling the local providers I could find on google (century link, xfinity, and wave). NONE of them provide any service (neither internet nor cable tv) at all in the area. Yes, I am pissed off about that. Cell phone signal is 3g. The only option I can find are satellite dishes (hughes, exede, and dish) with max speed of 25mbps and soft data cap max at 50GB/month (I currently average 170GB/month).

update: while writing this post I was able to get the phone number of the guy who was living there/taking care of the place for the previous owners. He said they were using dish and the service was absolutely horrible and completely useless for netflix. Plus it was costing about $270/month for internet and tv.

DAMN IT!
 
robble said:
I'm about to be in internet hell. =(

I currently have 1GB fiber here in Hawaii which of course is dreamy. However, I am moving to Olalla, Washington next week. While looking at houses to buy we found one we really loved with 5 acres of land. While talking to the owners I made it a point to ask them if high-speed internet was available. He confidently said "Yes". Bought the house and it closed almost 2 weeks ago. So I start calling the local providers I could find on google (century link, xfinity, and wave). NONE of them provide any service (neither internet nor cable tv) at all in the area. Yes, I am pissed off about that. Cell phone signal is 3g. The only option I can find are satellite dishes (hughes, exede, and dish) with max speed of 25mbps and soft data cap max at 50GB/month (I currently average 170GB/month).

update: while writing this post I was able to get the phone number of the guy who was living there/taking care of the place for the previous owners. He said they were using dish and the service was absolutely horrible and completely useless for netflix. Plus it was costing about $270/month for internet and tv.

DAMN IT!
Click to expand...
This is what happens when you don't do your research ahead of time.
 
So I was checking some nearby addresses to see if they could get service. Turns out just about a mile from me WAVE provides wired service. I called WAVE again and they said the house is too far from the node to run a line. Told the guy I would be willing to pay a few thousand to have a closer node installed. He put me on hold a few minutes and came back saying it costs 10's of thousands to install a node. Any one work for an ISP who might be able to give me insight into what's involved in putting in a node? This is going to kill me.
 
robble said:
I failed to do the second half of "Trust but verify"
Click to expand...
Well technically they did have broadband access, but it is shitty broadband access. You can't just ask "do you have broadband," you have to ask "what is the fastest internet available in your area."
 
Best hack with old VHF/UHF "knob" tuning TVs? If you tuned into the 70-80 channel range you could actually pick up cellular phone conversations long ago. Obviously now that everything is digital that's no longer possible but in the mid-to-late 1980s boy you could pick up some interesting comms happening. I remember catching one bonehead actually using his cell phone - already very expensive on a per minute call basis for the airtime, crazy prices like $1.50 a minute - to call a 1-900 sex line number which was probably $5-10 a minute.

Talk about shooting one's self in the foot... guess in that case it all depended on what was being fired off, maybe? :D
 
robble said:
So I was checking some nearby addresses to see if they could get service. Turns out just about a mile from me WAVE provides wired service. I called WAVE again and they said the house is too far from the node to run a line. Told the guy I would be willing to pay a few thousand to have a closer node installed. He put me on hold a few minutes and came back saying it costs 10's of thousands to install a node. Any one work for an ISP who might be able to give me insight into what's involved in putting in a node? This is going to kill me.
Click to expand...

What is involved? Depends on where you are putting it, what you have to start with, and what you are installing. I installed one a few months ago that required 3 miles of fiber be put in first ($50,000 per mile) then $25,000 in electronics in order to upgrade 80 people to 50Mbps DSL. So that was $175,000 to install that one. That said I have some areas that I have fiber passing through and only need to hit a 20 - 30 houses till I can get fiber there in a few years and can do that with equipment will only cost about $15,000 - $20,000. Both of these are me already having cabinets that I can reuse. Another location where I had to buy everything from scratch for a fiber to the prem location in a different city. I spent $60,000 on electronics and cabinet, we probably are spending about $75,000 to get fiber there from our closest location. Will give fiber to about 70 people when done with how we planned out the fiber build to start, which means more for all the drops. Normally if we are running fiber to every location in a subdivision / condensed area averages about $2700 per house to do fiber (when looking at 70 - 120 locations).

So tens of thousands is them putting in about the bare minimum they could to get upgraded service to an area. To which even that would be pushing it.
 
Yeah well my penis is just 6ms

peeeengs.PNG


Edit: I meant ping

Edit2: STOP PROBING ME
 
Last edited:
The only way I can see this as viable is if they piggyback this service on cell towers. Main transmitters and broadcast towers from a distance is a tough nut to crack. Unlike analog broadcasts; a weak signal was still a signal. Weak digital signal is no signal.
 
Sparky said:
2000?
I applaud their efforts but the people who need it most are rural customers out in the country which is also too far from broadcast TV signals.
Googles idea of having a blimp would work here but Google seems to want to help other countries and not the USA

This has got me triggered.
If you are able to receive OTA signal (around 30 mile range) you are more then likely to be in the DSL or Cable areas. Those in the 30+ mile range are SOL and this idea will not cover the number of people that they think it will cover. Back in the day we had a 90' antenna tower to receive stations from Memphis. (120 miles away) Now that its all digital we cannot receive OTA anymore and had to get satellite.
Click to expand...
This would work well in feeding the Blimps, actually. Their frames could double as giant antennas & altitude will help them catch a signal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top