Goodbye Analog TV, Hello Broadband Wireless Internet?

<!-- Generated by XStandard version 1.7.1.0 on 2006-10-31T09:29:48 -->

Once upon a time, Internet access was limited primarily by the &quot;last mile,&quot; the copper wires that brought a connection into a home or office. Now, in an era when connectivity is increasingly essential for mobile devices such as laptops and smartphones, wireless Internet will power the next generation of broadband expansion.

Envision this for a second: unlimited wireless broadband, everywhere, for pennies on the dollar of current solutions. Wi-Fi-like service that covers not just your home or office, but virtually anywhere that you care to go.

No, I'm not talking about Verizon's EV-DO network. While it has its virtues, EV-DO is incredibly restrictive about the devices that you can use, not to mention expensive and limited in footprint. And as long as cellular providers control the network, we can't expect that kind of service to reach a true saturation point. The use of unlicensed, cheaply operated, and heavily commoditized technology akin to Wi-Fi is the key to providing an inexpensive and robust network with nearly unlimited bandwidth. And make no mistake: we need that bandwidth.

EV-DO cards are nice, but service is incredibly restrictive and expensive. They are not the answer to a wireless future.

More bandwidth please

Most of the exciting mobile technologies of the future need more and more speed to be practical -- things like IPTV, on-demand video downloads, VoIP, video conferencing, etcetera. And that bandwidth needs to be wireless. Fiber optics are the ultimate solution for nearly unlimited bandwidth, but they're never going to reach full deployment. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per mile to deploy fiber, and there are simply too many areas where companies like Verizon would never make enough profit to convince them to install the cables. Even if you had a nationwide mandate for 100% fiber deployment, the way that phone lines were mandated in the last century, those fibers are only as good as the points to which they're deployed. You can't drag a fiber cable around hooked up to a mobile device, and cellular alternatives aren't going to cut it in the long term.

What we need is a truly broadband wireless network to fill the gaps, and to provide enough bandwidth for mobile devices. And just such a thing may be lurking not too far over the horizon.

Goodbye analog TV, hello more bandwidth?

Currently, the FCC is considering the public availability of dozens of radio frequency slots located in between television channels, in the 150-700 MHz range. These new channels would become available after the planned shutdown of analog TV in 2009, and would allow unlicensed radio communication, such as wireless Internet services, to take a seat in one of the more desirable frequency ranges for combining range and bandwidth. You could do this with other frequencies as well -- a considerable amount of space in the 2500 MHz range is expected to be used for Sprint's WiMax network, for instance. But the lower the frequency, the greater the range it has, and the better ability to cut through obstacles, which makes the space between TV stations ideal.

In 2009 your old analog TV will no longer work in the U.S. as the FCC reclaims those airwaves (view large image)

With a relative minimum of hardware, these new channels could deliver wireless Internet to mobile devices at speeds up to or beyond 4 megabits, and ranges up to 25 miles or more. With that kind of range, a single tower could cover most of Rhode Island. And operating in unlicensed radio spectrum, hardware would be quickly commoditized, ala Wi-Fi, keeping setup costs relatively low.

With those channels, and the proper hardware to take advantage of them, you could cover pretty much the entire continental United States with less than 4,000 towers. Even assuming an equipment and setup cost of $100,000 per tower, a high-end estimate, the total nationwide network would cost about $400 million dollars. That's less than a tenth of what T-Mobile alone paid for radio spectrum licenses to deploy slower 3G solutions, let alone the billions more they'll have to spend on hardware. A more limited network covering only major metropolitan areas could probably be done for well under $100 million. While unlicensed radio does mean more need for caution in avoiding interference, it also means that virtually anybody with even a few thousand dollars to start one tower can compete in a market. That in turn means more choices, better prices, and fewer limitations.

There would be trade-offs to such a proposed system, of course. As range increased, speed would decrease. Measures would have to be taken to prevent base stations from interfering with each other. New hardware would have to be designed, tested, certified, and commoditized. And of course, this is all operating under the assumption that the analog TV shutoff goes as planned in 2009. But either way, the real future of the wireless Internet lies in an unlicensed, pure network solution, with cheap hardware and cheaper airwaves.

 

screw them *******s for gettting rid of analog tv, I use my 1982 sony trinitron everyday for watching tv, it seems all those jerks want is money I hear the fcc is going to sell the newly acquired space for billions of dollars and are going to leave us old tv viewers out in the cold, but they are susposed to make some sort of digital box so they can still use the older tvs but Iam sick of digital I remember two years ago when I was in highschool walking under lots of concrete buildings using my analog nokia 252 and it worked great no dropped calls! you could tell when it was about to as the phone conversation sounded light a radio station going out of range, with digital it just cuts you off completely and rarely gives you a warning, yes Iam a proponent of analog systems and Iam tired of everything digital. I wish things would stay the same for a lot longer.

 

I realized how unprepared for digital we are in Europe during the Milan derby. the italians used a low resolution which was indistinguishable ("where's the bloody ball?!! on who's team is that guy?!!") on a projector and on the 50" screens at the bar... and we started remembering about the good times when we used to watch these games on Tele+. Though the World Cup had high resolutions and was a dream to watch.

 

That would be really cool if there was broadband internet just about anywhere you went. I would love to have that kind of connectivity!

 

Finally, a way to "drop my network!" Go free internet!

Combine that with Skype and you'd have a fully covered US. No more dropped calls.

And no, I'm not joking...it would be nice.

 

It would be nice to get a high speed solution in some of the more rural areas... stupid 56k

 

That's like saying you want to go back to the stone age. Computers run everything and digital is everywhere. I am sure you are using a lot of digital devices or rely on digital services that far surpass what you might have had in the past and don't even realize it. Who in here still listens to audio cassettes when there are CDs and MP3s out there? I'll be d*mned if I garner any joy from watching my 1.5 channels that I can see through bunny ears. I can go use a TV streaming program on the internet or even YouTube and get so much better quality.

Chances are your area just has a poor reception, you bought a horrible phone, or your obstinate behavior has morphed you into thinking your analog phone was actually good when in fact, it was not. Either way, I don't doubt that you are completely wrong and being a living anachronism isn't good for your health or quality of life.

It's ironic that you are using a digital machine to access a digital network known as the Internet to read this article and also inputting your reply on said machine.

 

Let's keep this discussion from getting personal. Thank you.

I think it would be great if everything pans out as AdamaDBrown posted. It's hard to say what's going to happen with all the power that modern corporations have over everything. Here's hoping.

I do look back fondly on my cell phone from 12 years ago though. Perhaps my standards were lower then.

 

The radius of Rhode Island is only 25 miles? I don't see how one tower would do it!

 

Man I think what you said is really rude, you forget the other facts, like when the fcc does this none of the poor peoples tv sets will work. I know alot of people who still use analog tv. the fcc will get to sell the newly acquired space for billions and they said they will provide new digital boxs that will make the old tvs compatible, problem is they are only spending a tiny portion of that money to help people upgrade, the rest are left to fend for themselfs. also I don't think we should go back to the stone age as you mentioned, I just think we need to keep current technologies around longer, it is also enviromentally friendly to keep using older stuff longer. I just want people to know both sides of things and you had to turn it into a flame against me. I also think that cheap internet will probably never happen as the greddy companys will buy the space, add more bandwith and features and charge comsumers at least as much as they have been doing.

 

RI is about 40 miles long and 30 miles wide. Will be great if they pilot with RI since it is so small.

 

theory sounds great, however I can imagine coverage only being similar to analog broadcast TV. We only live ~20 miles from a decent-sized city and analog TV reception is quite shady here.