Using TV Airwaves For Internet

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I don’t know about you but using TV airwaves for the internet sounds like a good idea to me. The prototype device just went into testing to make sure internet traffic doesn’t bleed over into broadcast channels.

The coalition, which includes Microsoft and Google, wants regulators to allow idle TV channels, known as white space, to be used to beam the Internet into homes and offices. But the Federal Communications Commission first must be convinced that such traffic would not bleed outside its designated channels and interfere with existing broadcasts.
Click to expand...
 
...to combat the bleed over, download porn and watch porn at the same time...you know, in ase signals cross you'll be covered. :D
 
Does this mean we'll have to bust out the rabbit ears to get better bandwidth?

"OMG Lag! lemme adjust the antenna"
 
KaosDG said:
Does this mean we'll have to bust out the rabbit ears to get better bandwidth?

"OMG Lag! lemme adjust the antenna"
Click to expand...

heh...every time you get up and touch the antenna you get great reception....the minute you let go, you lag. That is funny. :D
 
Steve said:
heh...every time you get up and touch the antenna you get great reception....the minute you let go, you lag. That is funny. :D
Click to expand...

"Oh! Wait! Right there! Yeah, man! Now don't move Billy!"

"Come on man I wanna get my frag on too!"


edit: damn I am showing my age
 
In the US, a TV channel is a 6 MHz wide chunk of bandwidth. The bottom edge of the over-the-air channel 2 is 54 MHz and the upper edge is 60 MHz. Within this 6 MHz space there are three parts, a video carrier, a color carrier, and an audio carrier.

over the air channels are as follows
channel/freq in mhz
2 55.25
3 61.25
4 67.25
5 77.25
6 83.25
7 175.25
8 181.25
9 187.25
10 193.25
11 199.25
12 205.25
13 211.25
14 471.25
15 477.25
16 483.25
17 489.25
18 495.25
19 501.25
20 507.25
21 513.25
22 519.25
23 525.25
24 531.25
25 537.25
26 543.25
27 549.25
28 555.25
29 561.25
30 567.25
31 573.25
32 579.25
33 585.25
34 591.25
35 597.25
36 603.25
37 609.25
38 615.25
39 621.25
40 627.25
41 633.25
42 639.25
43 645.25
44 651.25
45 657.25
46 663.25
47 669.25
48 675.25
49 681.25
50 687.25
51 693.25
52 699.25
53 705.25
54 711.25
55 717.25
56 723.25
57 729.25
58 735.25
59 741.25
60 747.25
61 753.25
62 759.25
63 765.25
64 771.25
65 777.25
66 783.25
67 789.25
68 795.25
69 801.25
70 807.25
71 813.25
72 819.25
73 825.25
74 831.25
75 837.25
76 843.25
77 849.25
78 855.25
79 861.25
80 867.25
81 873.25
82 879.25
83 885.25

we lost 70 to 83 to public safety/cellular/nextel etc that became the "800mhz band"

we will soon be loosing 60 to 69 as the new 700mhz public safety band gets rolled out... those chanels wont be turned off until at least the end of this calendar year...

then eventually we will be loosing 51 to 59 as the rest of the 700mhz spectrum gets rolled out (probably nextel since they buy everything - read: evil company)

that leaves us with everything till channel 50...

but wait, in most areas you dont have 14 - 20 becuase they have already been used for FM "T-Band" uhf voice comminications...

so that leaves us with 2 - 13 and 21 - 50... 2 - 14 are vhf which would be good for long distance communications, but tv channels are only 6mhz wide like we said before, this isnt that useful, unless we bond some together (remember ONE 802.11 channel is 22mhz wide!)...

2 55.25
3 61.25
4 67.25

2 - 4 18mhz

5 77.25
6 83.25

5 & 6 12mhz

7 175.25
8 181.25
9 187.25
10 193.25
11 199.25
12 205.25
13 211.25

7 - 13 42mhz

uhf is more useful since they are all right up against each other... so we can bond channels easier... and it can still get a pretty far distance with reasonably sized antennas (remember higher frequency = smaller antenna)


21 513.25
22 519.25
23 525.25
24 531.25
25 537.25
26 543.25
27 549.25
28 555.25
29 561.25
30 567.25
31 573.25
32 579.25
33 585.25
34 591.25
35 597.25
36 603.25
37 609.25
38 615.25
39 621.25
40 627.25
41 633.25
42 639.25
43 645.25
44 651.25
45 657.25
46 663.25
47 669.25
48 675.25
49 681.25
50 687.25

thats 174Mhz,,, so assuming none of those channels were being used you could almost fit 8 802.11 channels

problem is if you have one tv station say on 41, you probably are not going to be able to use 40 or 42, so that there is no chance of harmful interfearence or bleed over...

so now you have to have a buffer between you and whatever is near you... and be able to find enough channels free between said buffers to actually have enough rf bandwith to do something useful with it...

frankly i think this will probably never happen...

tv channels are not where we need to be looking, we need to look higher, microwave is where its at 3~15ghz
 
now note that the FCC has already licenced some wireless providers in the 700mhz spectrum, at least one plans to offer OFDM services... but this has nothing to do with "TV airwaves" at least not anymore...
 
Well hopefully with the partners in that coalition, something gets done about the insane prices and the slowness of broadband here in the states compared with the rest of the globe.
 
How is this any better than say, motorolas current 900Mhz wireless internet system?

Warily watching from the sidelines are the major telephone and cable companies that (rarely) compete to bring (overpriced or non-existant) high-speed Internet into (possibly up to)millions of businesses and homes.
Click to expand...

Words in bold added in by myself to correct the article.

I used to live in a fairly rual area, rual enough that quite a few of my friends dont even have power to the house, or a phone. But for those closer to the city limits, hell even IN the city limits, far in... there isnt anything avalible. The wireless motorola stuff, they told me they could do up to several miles line-of-sight without issues, 2Mb DSL was offered for $45.00 per month there, plus cost of equipment (~$300.00).

I just wonder if this half-baked plan is going to end up being no better than ISPs who work with 802.11b/motorola 900mhz, as far as pricing and internet coverage goes.
 
Hmm, since I cant edit:

Im actualy quite a bit off on the distance for the motorola stuff, motorolas website claims 40 miles point-to-multipoint, and that was stated 3 years ago.
 
Martyr said:
the next step in wireless needs to be to satellite. just the way it is.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean? Satellite certainly isnt a worthwhile alternative, especially if the weather is bad or anything thats being done is affected by pings close to 1 second.
 
KaosDG said:
Does this mean we'll have to bust out the rabbit ears to get better bandwidth?

"OMG Lag! lemme adjust the antenna"
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, rabbit ears have an equivalent of 50mbs bandwidth. But I have been wrong before.
 
WAY back in the early 90's there were 2 differing systems that did this, and they were both bundled with most capture cards sold back then. They were called WaveTop and Intercast (http://www.aitech.com/support/specialtechnlgs.htm). And while they both used the VBI (Vertical Blank Interval) for transmission, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to dedicate a channel (or more) instead.
 
Hey felcom what about FM radio, isn't that somewhere in the 2-8 channel range? Also I think clear channel is doing the same for their "HD radio" you can't imagine how much I cringe every time I hear that.
 
bigstusexy said:
Hey felcom what about FM radio, isn't that somewhere in the 2-8 channel range? Also I think clear channel is doing the same for their "HD radio" you can't imagine how much I cringe every time I hear that.
Click to expand...

no its between 6 and 7

their digital radio broadcasts are using sidebands or subcarriers depending on the service and thats only a 96kbps broadcast stream
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top