SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we'll-all-watch-your-latest-YouTube-video dept.
UHF takes up the space between 400 and 700 megahertz on the wireless spectrum [Ed: Technically, it's defined as being from 300Mhz to 3Ghz]. [At these frequencies] its signals can carry for miles and more easily penetrate walls and trees than the higher frequencies used for most wireless routers. Despite this and the growing demand for wireless data, TV broadcasters continue to maintain preferential access to the UHF spectrum, even as the percentage of Americans relying on over-the-air signals for TV programming has begun to dip into the single digits in recent years.
The Federal Communications Commission allows for data to be transmitted over open UHF channels not claimed by a TV broadcaster, but urban areas where the need for more Wi-Fi options is greatest are also the least likely to have unclaimed UHF frequencies.
Knightly and Rice graduate student Xu Zhang designed a new solution to allow for transmitting wireless data over UHF channels during TV broadcasts over those same channels called WATCH (for "Wi-Fi in Active TV Channels") and were granted permission from the FCC to test it on the Rice campus last year. The basic idea behind the system is to actively monitor nearby TVs that are tuned into a local UHF video signal and to use advanced and efficient signal-canceling technology to send wireless data over the same channel without interference between the data and video transmissions.
Perhaps this is a candidate for open access to the Internet that this and other forums have been kicking around the past few years.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Friday July 17 2015, @09:37PM
Your editorial correction though makes it look more like you think he's talking about the whole band and correcting the size. It would be much clearer if you instead pointed out the article is about a portion of the band used for TV channels in the US.
"[Ed: Actually, the UHF band is larger but the 400 Mhz to 700 Mhz range is the portion of it used for TV in the US.]" or something like that would make the whole summary, including the editorial snippet, clearer. Thanks for actually responding in any case. I would probably never have this two-way conversation on the green site.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday July 18 2015, @02:48AM
Well, OK, but you are the only one (so far) that seems to have been confused by this. I certainly wasn't. And as this happens to coincide with an area in which I have some expertise I do like to correct any errors that I find. However, you will be welcome on the Editorial Team if you have some time to spare.
We like to think that we are different, and your userid suggests that you have been with us for a while so you will know that we value feedback and try to explain our actions. I'll just have to improve for next time.