Spectrum crunch

[Albel]

(To mods/ admins, if you feel as though this needs to be switched to the video game sub-forum please do, but it was my thoughts this would get more traffic and discussion her on the main OT board)

 

I have recently just picked up watching Penny Arcade TV, and specifically a show on PATV called extra credits. It's a show that deals with issues in gaming and they do a really great job at discussing at and providing new ideas for us gamers. Last night I saw this episode and was shocked to learn it, but it is true...we as a society are running out of bandwidth.

 

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spectrum-crunch

 

It's something that I have never though of, and it is a very worrisome thought for a lot of us. As he says at the end of the show, there is not a lot we can do about it at the moment, but I figured this would be a topic we all could discuss since it could effect everyone who uses the internet regularly.

 

So what are your thoughts or opinions on this?

[stevepole]

Very interesting, I have noticed a growing interesting in freeing up old frequencies, but never paid attention to why. It'll be interesting to see what kind of solution they're able to come up with.

[Omar]

I can't think of much to say, except "That sucks".

[sees_all1]

Listened to it, understood it. Also knew enough to know the animator kept showing pictures of irrelevant things, like cat5 cables. The problem is broadcast, cell phones, and satellite t.v., not wired connection.

[Giordano]

Hm, glad I know why data plans are overpriced and glad I got rid of mine. Guess wireless isn't all that glorious of a word anymore, is it? :shades:

[Diesel]

And here's a possible solution.

 

http://www.tgdaily.com/networking-features/61818-twisting-radio-waves-could-boost-capacity

[Sbrideau]

Usually gaming is done on wires since it's much more stable, but yeah, this seems to become a problem, plus with the new Wireless technologies that always come out (Such as Wireless ac, which will replace Wireless N in not too long), they always need new ways to transfer wirelessly. Anyway, explains a bit why it's so expensive for data plans on the cellphone. I usually connect to my own Wireless Lan when I want to transfer large files on my cell though.

[jasignhagj]

It's my understanding that a large spectrum could be freed up by stopping TV channels from broadcasting in analogue.

[The Dark Lord]

How come only the visible spectrum is good for transferring data?

[Randox]

How come only the visible spectrum is good for transferring data?

That was just the graph they used. You actually can't use the visible spectrum unless you have a direct line of sight. Same for much of the IR and UV spectrums. You also can't use UV/X-Ray/Gamma because that's dangerous. So all wireless technology is relegated to the Radio and Microwave segments of the spectrum. While you can theoretically make the wavelength as large as you like (if you can build the antenna), as wavelength goes up, the frequency drops, and frequency has a direct impact on how fast you can move the data. Also, at some point it becomes a 1 way transmission since the sending antenna needs to be a certain size in relation to the wavelength, or else you get very destructive energy spikes as the internal signals run into each other. Anything bellow a GHz is pretty much useless for 2 way communication (both because the waves get too big, and becasue the transmission speed is too low for most applications, except radios).

[Omar]

And here's a possible solution.

 

http://www.tgdaily.com/networking-features/61818-twisting-radio-waves-could-boost-capacity

How would current devices adapt to this?

[lordkafei]

In the USA:

UHF TV was once 14-83, then they lopped off channels 70-83 (806-896 MHz) for cellular & 2-way.

Then when they had the DTV conversion a few years back, they took away channels 52-69 (698-806 MHz) and auctioned the spectrum off to wireless providers. So now in the USA, UHF TV has channels 14-51 (470-698 MHz).

 

Now, out in the sticks not all those channels are used; there are gaps in the spectrum that could be used for other things. In my market, from 14 to 51 there are 7 frequencies being used for DTV. The rest are there for low power TV (Class A), repeaters and potential future use.

 

These unused TV frequencies could be regionally allotted for other wireless uses if the law allowed it. But out here, there is no spectrum crunch because there are fewer people.

 

But in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or other major cities, it is a different matter.

 

There is a much larger demand for wireless access there. But at the same time, there are many more TV broadcasters in those areas. There are no gaps in the TV block that could be reappropriated for wireless internet.

 

We have the free spectrum in precisely the areas where it is not needed, but where the crunch is, there is no spectrum to be had.

 

What will eventually happen is that broadcast television as your grandparents & parents knew it will go away. Not now, not next year, or even in the next decade. But when enough of the rabbit ears generation dies off, the frequencies that are now used for broadcast TV will be reclaimed for other uses.

 

In the end, however, we just have to realize that spectrum is finite and limited.

 

IMO, the use of wireless broadband for personalized video streaming is an egregious waste. Reigning that in would help a lot.

[Sy_Accursed]

Broadcasting spectrum doesn't have to be an issue. In UK with the 'digital switchover' all analogue tv gas been switched off allowing that whole range to be repurposed (in the next few years) for 4G mobile. And there's already talk of the potential for a digital switchover for radio (again ditching am and fm broadcasts for dab) and the growing possibility of switching off 2G cellular network as well since the plain phone usage doesn't need it and anyone who does anything using G-networks has new enough handsets to use 3G.