Super WiFi Could Use Television Spectrums To Disrupt Wireless Market

Status
Not open for further replies.

Achoo22

Distinguished
Aug 23, 2011
350
2
18,780
0
As someone who currently pays about $80 USD a month for about 1mbps with 2-20% packet loss, I'm still searching for some incipient broadband technology to hang my hopes on. Unfortunately, I don't think this will be the one that improves my lot. I have great connectivity to local DSLAMs and cellular towers, but there just isn't any bandwidth on the back-end. Everything is copper-fed with just enough T-spans to allow everyone to check their e-mail and update their Facebook status.

With respect to the auction of more spectrum to telcos, I don't approve. I don't think we, the citizens that are selling our spectrum, are getting a fair deal in exchange. I'd rather see it licensed for educational and hobbyist use or just about anything other than further lining the pockets of AT&T, Verizon, et al.
 

rmirwin2

Distinguished
Sep 25, 2008
11
0
18,510
0

Actually, either is correct: http://grammarist.com/usage/spectra-spectrums/

Actually, either is correct: http://grammarist.com/usage/spectra-spectrums/
I'm standing by the Latin. As a practicing spectroscopist it sounds terrrible. I do appreciate that others apparently choose not to. Interesting that one is recognized in Mirriam-Webster, the other is not.
 

mctylr

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2010
66
0
18,660
9
Yes of course we should turn to economists to help solve the problems of wireless communications. The same folks who produced the economic forecasts and analysis that saw the government profit quite handsomely (billion dollar auctions) from the auctions of this same EM spectrum they speak of, back near 2000-05 in North America, Europe, and I suspect elsewhere.

What these economists and Dr. Reed don't mention is that like colour, radio frequencies are both part of the same electromagnetic spectrum, but just as we can't license, auction, or otherwise invent new colours, we cannot change the inherent principles that vary over different parts of the EM spectrum. That said radio frequencies at 700 MHz don't exhibit all the same characteristics of 2.4GHz (used in 802.11a/b/g). It's easier to generate a large amount of power at 700 MHz than it is for 2.4 GHz, much less of an issue than back in the 1980s, but still relevant in a world increasingly aware of power consumption. The other is that it can easily travel further distance in terrestrial (both end-points being earth based) communications. These two factors mean that users are more likely to experience interference from other uses.

But what they do gloss over is that applications like spread-spectrum technologies and smart-phones entail a huge R&D investment. The devices are more complex, and thus more expensive to produce per unit, while technology has improved and commercialization has reduce the cost per unit, they are still far more expensive in material and development cost and complexity compared to "dumb" transmission technology. It is not magic, it's an economic trade-off. The cost and complexity of a 1920's crystal radio was essentially a piece of rock (galena), and some wire that you could assemble yourself at home (and many actually did prior to commercialization).

The other thing is that at 700 MHz you can expect to only allocate one or two "channels" (20-40 MHz per channel in existing WiFi AFAIK) to utilize so as to prevent interference with your neighbour's 700 MHz Wi-Fi. Unless you want to overlap with radio frequencies allocated for first responders (police, fire, etc.) because I can't imagine anyone abusing that situation.

The risk of over-simplification is that you miss the details that actual are relevant.

And I would never expect an economist to fix my bathroom sink or build a house, why should I expect them to solve EE / RF issues. Perhaps they could spend time working on you know, the economy, least they fear admitting they are typically well-dressed, well-spoken clueless about their specialization, and would have to real job otherwise.
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,173
9
19,285
0
It could be useful though for low power and low bit rate gateways for the internet of things/sensors which could have a signal throughout a house or one floor of a building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS