{"title":"有多少空白空间容量?","authors":"Kate Harrison, S. M. Mishra, A. Sahai","doi":"10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Nov 2008 FCC ruling allowing access to the television whitespaces prompts a natural question. What is the magnitude and geographic distribution of the opportunity that has been opened up? This paper takes a semi-empirical perspective and uses the FCC's database of television transmitters, USA~census data from 2000, and standard wireless propagation and information-theoretic capacity models to see the distribution of {\\bf data-rates available on a per-person basis} for wireless Internet access across the continental USA. To get a realistic evaluation of the potential public benefit, we need to examine more than just how many whitespace channels have been made available. It is also important to consider the wireless ``pollution'' from existing television stations, the self-interference among whitespace devices themselves, the population distribution, and the expected transmission range of the whitespace devices. The clear advantage of the whitespace approach is revealed through a direct comparison of the Pareto frontier of the new white-space approach and that corresponding to the traditional approach of refarming bands between television and wireless data service. Finally, the critical importance of economic investment considerations is shown by considering the status of rural vs urban areas. Based on technical considerations alone, whether we consider long or short-range whitespace systems, people in rural areas would seem to be the main beneficiaries of white-space systems. In fact, a power-law distribution is found that suggests that many rural customers would enjoy tremendous data-rates. However, the fundamental need to recover investments by wireless ISPs couples the range to the population density. This clips the tail of the power-law and shows that urban areas actually get significant benefit from the TV whitespaces. Overall, the opportunity provided by TV whitespaces is shown to be potentially of the same order as the recent release of ``beachfront'' 700MHz spectrum for wireless data service.","PeriodicalId":106204,"journal":{"name":"2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum (DySPAN)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"222","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Much White-Space Capacity Is There?\",\"authors\":\"Kate Harrison, S. M. Mishra, A. Sahai\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Nov 2008 FCC ruling allowing access to the television whitespaces prompts a natural question. What is the magnitude and geographic distribution of the opportunity that has been opened up? This paper takes a semi-empirical perspective and uses the FCC's database of television transmitters, USA~census data from 2000, and standard wireless propagation and information-theoretic capacity models to see the distribution of {\\\\bf data-rates available on a per-person basis} for wireless Internet access across the continental USA. To get a realistic evaluation of the potential public benefit, we need to examine more than just how many whitespace channels have been made available. It is also important to consider the wireless ``pollution'' from existing television stations, the self-interference among whitespace devices themselves, the population distribution, and the expected transmission range of the whitespace devices. The clear advantage of the whitespace approach is revealed through a direct comparison of the Pareto frontier of the new white-space approach and that corresponding to the traditional approach of refarming bands between television and wireless data service. Finally, the critical importance of economic investment considerations is shown by considering the status of rural vs urban areas. Based on technical considerations alone, whether we consider long or short-range whitespace systems, people in rural areas would seem to be the main beneficiaries of white-space systems. In fact, a power-law distribution is found that suggests that many rural customers would enjoy tremendous data-rates. However, the fundamental need to recover investments by wireless ISPs couples the range to the population density. This clips the tail of the power-law and shows that urban areas actually get significant benefit from the TV whitespaces. Overall, the opportunity provided by TV whitespaces is shown to be potentially of the same order as the recent release of ``beachfront'' 700MHz spectrum for wireless data service.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum (DySPAN)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"222\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum (DySPAN)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457914\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2010 IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum (DySPAN)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Nov 2008 FCC ruling allowing access to the television whitespaces prompts a natural question. What is the magnitude and geographic distribution of the opportunity that has been opened up? This paper takes a semi-empirical perspective and uses the FCC's database of television transmitters, USA~census data from 2000, and standard wireless propagation and information-theoretic capacity models to see the distribution of {\bf data-rates available on a per-person basis} for wireless Internet access across the continental USA. To get a realistic evaluation of the potential public benefit, we need to examine more than just how many whitespace channels have been made available. It is also important to consider the wireless ``pollution'' from existing television stations, the self-interference among whitespace devices themselves, the population distribution, and the expected transmission range of the whitespace devices. The clear advantage of the whitespace approach is revealed through a direct comparison of the Pareto frontier of the new white-space approach and that corresponding to the traditional approach of refarming bands between television and wireless data service. Finally, the critical importance of economic investment considerations is shown by considering the status of rural vs urban areas. Based on technical considerations alone, whether we consider long or short-range whitespace systems, people in rural areas would seem to be the main beneficiaries of white-space systems. In fact, a power-law distribution is found that suggests that many rural customers would enjoy tremendous data-rates. However, the fundamental need to recover investments by wireless ISPs couples the range to the population density. This clips the tail of the power-law and shows that urban areas actually get significant benefit from the TV whitespaces. Overall, the opportunity provided by TV whitespaces is shown to be potentially of the same order as the recent release of ``beachfront'' 700MHz spectrum for wireless data service.