BLOG

New Wi-Fi has a range of 62 miles. Yes, really.

Once upon a time Wi-FI could barely reach from one end of your house to the other.

Pundits scoffed at the idea that the Internet could ever live in cars since traveling down the road meant an endless succession of somebody else’s (closed) Wi-Fi networks.

Then folks realized that you could bring the Internet into the car with you, thanks to the 3G (or better) device in your pocket that you also occasionally used for making calls.

Yeah, they said, but that’s clunky and awkward and only on its way to becoming universal.  True enough.

And then, one day, a new Wi-Fi standard was approved, thanks to the spectrum opened by the digital transformation of TV.  And that new Wi-Fi could do a little better than reach from one end of your house to the other:  62 miles in all directions better, in fact.

Yes, the just-released new Wi-Fi standard has a total range of 12,000 square miles – from a single base station.

Do you think this will affect radio, Mr. Broadcaster?  What about you, Mr. NAB?

Reports DVICE:

Now that the official standard has been approved, companies can go start building things that incorporate 802.22 technology, so it’s really just a matter of time before none of us are without Wi-Fi access ever again. Phew.

Conceivably, this could mean that all wireless devices are built for Wi-Fi, given a range and reliability that looks suspiciously like what we used to call “broadcast radio.”  Does that mean goodbye cellular?  Maybe.  Who needs it when your Wi-Fi has the same coverage as the TV station that used to occupy that same frequency?

But what it certainly will mean is that the exclusivity rendered by broadcast signals will cease to exist. And broadcasters will win or lose not on the basis of owning all the audio real estate but by providing the best content in the best forms that the most consumers want to seek out and consume.

As is usual in technology prognostication, this may not play out quite the way it seems (remember Wi-Max?).  But one thing is clear:  Consumer demand is pushing us towards better, faster, more universal, easier, more accessible wireless access.  And that will have consequences for radio.

None of this will happen right away, obviously.  It will take years.  But what will it mean when every alternative to radio has the same potential ubiquity as radio enjoys?

It will mean that radio has to be really, really good.

And really, really more than “radio.”

26 Comments;
  • http://roulstonresearch.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/roulston-research-partner-on-the-affects-of-wi-fi%e2%80%99s-extended-range/ Roulston Research Partner on the Affects of Wi-Fi’s Extended Range « The Collaborator by Roulston Research

    [...] Roulston Research Partner Mark Ramsey recently created a blog posting about the potential ramifications of the new Wi-Fi standard. The new 802.22 Wi-Fi standard that was recently released covers a span in all directions of 62 miles. It operates in ranges from 54MHz to 698MHz and can transport a total range of 12,000 square miles from a single base station. What this means is that the exclusivity of broadcast signals will no longer be a source of competitive advantage for large broadcasters when Wi-Fi has the same coverage. Therefore, in the future broadcasters will win or lose based on providing the best content in different channels that consumers will want to seek out and consume. To read Mark’s full posting on how changing the Wi-Fi standard will affect the industry please visit his website at http://www.markramseymedia.com/2011/08/new-wi-fi-has-a-range-of-62-miles-yes-really/. [...]

  • Captain Spuds

    Whoa, hey, that means digital radio can now sync with the internet just like my smart phone does. Silly me, do I really need another device, when my smart phone does all that and more. Plus, it does everything, and more!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SNKK7ZOZF5VF7FU63BXCM5LIXI R M

    Although Mark has been correct and thought provoking on many subjects, he screwed the pooch on this one. He was correct quoting the underlying source as to the material he used to reference this post, unfortunately the underlying material was wrong, as too often the case with articles on the internet. In fact the underlying source of the source Mark quoted helps spell this out.

    First, according to “true source” press release

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110726007223/en/IEEE-802.22TM-2011-Standard-Wireless-Regional-Area-Networks

    “This technology is especially useful for serving less densely populated areas, such as rural areas, and developing countries where most vacant TV channels can be found.”

    LESS DENSLEY POPULATED AREAS, SUCH AS RURAL AREAS AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

    And then a map is shown of a 62 mile radius of San Francisco…..ROFLMAO. Does that meet the above requirements?

    Furthermore, Mark states (using the error in his source) this is made possbile by the frequencies opened up when TV made the move to Digital ATSC in 2009. Sorry, but that is 100% INCORRECT as well. That spectrum has already been sold to 3rd parties including Qualcomm, Echostar and others.

    What they are actually referencing is the area in the current TV band IN BETWEEN CO-LOCATED  channels. For example, lets use the old channel designations, Channel 7 / WABC-TV in NY as well as WJLA-TV Channel 7 in DC. Yes, these stations no longer use VHF-High NTSC Channel 7, but for example and reference only, NY and DC are slightly less than 200 miles apart. What this article is stating is that somewhere half way between NY and DC in the “white areas” between the two, this device would “know that” and allow that device to use that frequency up to the theoritical 62 miles. However, lets not forget there was a Channel 7 located to the West that comes into play as well.

    Ramsey further asks “”Do you think this will affect radio, Mr. Broadcaster? What about you, Mr. NAB?”
    Actually, Mr. Broadcaster and Mr. NAB know this will affect TV as these devices fire up and start causing interference issues with current ATSC TV Stations, so they are fighting it in an all out battle.

    Radio knows the problems “pirates” and LPFM cause, especially with Digital Radio. Imagine that issue multiplied to every house and office in America for TV. That’s why TV and the NAB are fighting this tooth and nail.

    Bottom line. There are no really open “white spaces” in the UHF band (where this technology is supposed to be located) in the Northeast Corridor as well as California (where the 62 mile radius map in the Ramsey’s blog was shown). In fact, ABC/Disney’s Channel 6 in Philadelphia wanted to move to a UHF Channel, BUT NONE ARE OPEN as everything has a Broadcaster on it.

    Its even tight in other East Coast areas. Yes, this could work in Kansas, the Dakotas and Wyoming for example (just as the original source states), but it is not reality for true populated areas of the USA.

    BTW, do you know the power output and tower height needed to get a signal out 62 miles on a UHF Frequency? Remember UHF is essentially line of sight. And you need a return path from your device as well. How many houses will put up towers 10x higher or more than their house when they do not even want a TV Antenna on the house? Do you think HOA’s would have issue 50+ foot towers on houses? Still thinking this is the threat expressed in Ramsey’s blog?

    Bottom line, no Broadcaster should want unlicensed transmitters capable of broadcasting on their frequency in every house and office in America, no matter what the intended use.

    Will people have higher speed internet available to them regardless of location in the future? 100% yes. Will it be provided by 802.22 WIFI? If your answer to this is yes, you need to re-read the above again.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    So, if you’re correct (and I don’t know that you are), you agree with my conclusion but not my path to it based on the reports I read.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SNKK7ZOZF5VF7FU63BXCM5LIXI R M

    Your conclusion “New Wi-Fi has a range of 62 miles. Yes, really.” ?

    No, I do not agree with that. FCC has approved Wireless Microphones with 4 watts max output to use the “white space” between existing TV stations, not the frequencies vacated by the ATSC move in 2009 and already sold via auction to other Companies for their use mistakenly referenced in your blog.

    4 Watts in UHF does not travel 62 miles…..not even close.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SNKK7ZOZF5VF7FU63BXCM5LIXI R M

    Your conclusion “New Wi-Fi has a range of 62 miles. Yes, really.” ?

    No, I do not agree with that. FCC has approved Wireless Microphones with 4 watts max output to use the “white space” between existing TV stations, not the frequencies vacated by the ATSC move in 2009 and already sold via auction to other Companies for their use mistakenly referenced in your blog.

    4 Watts in UHF does not travel 62 miles…..not even close.

  • Jim

    Mark, you leave out a big part of the equation: FREE radio – NOT Free Internet. You may have wi-fi someday that covers a vast area, but it will not be free and it will have some kind of bandwidth limits as we are seeing with cell phone contracts. It is true that radio needs to up it’s game, but it does still hold a big advantage over internet delivered programming that is not, and will not be in the future, free at the touch of a button.

  • Jim

    Mark, you leave out a big part of the equation: FREE radio – NOT Free Internet. You may have wi-fi someday that covers a vast area, but it will not be free and it will have some kind of bandwidth limits as we are seeing with cell phone contracts. It is true that radio needs to up it’s game, but it does still hold a big advantage over internet delivered programming that is not, and will not be in the future, free at the touch of a button.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    The conclusion comes at the end of the post.

    Mark Ramsey

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    The conclusion comes at the end of the post.

    Mark Ramsey

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    Yes but…. When you are paying for bandwidth because you need it for something else then the incremental cost of online radio is “free”
    Mark Ramsey

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    Yes but…. When you are paying for bandwidth because you need it for something else then the incremental cost of online radio is “free”
    Mark Ramsey

  • http://twitter.com/MediabridgeLive Gairy Callam

    I am absolutely annoyed with the people who scoff at what’s going to happen with radio very shortly. The simple truth is there are so many options that open up each and everyday that it is difficult for radio the traditional way to compete. Whether using Digital, Online, Mobile whatever. We have got to grow beyond what we are today. The point is “radio has to be really, really good.And really, really more than “radio.” 
    Nuff said.

  • http://twitter.com/MediabridgeLive Gairy Callam

    I am absolutely annoyed with the people who scoff at what’s going to happen with radio very shortly. The simple truth is there are so many options that open up each and everyday that it is difficult for radio the traditional way to compete. Whether using Digital, Online, Mobile whatever. We have got to grow beyond what we are today. The point is “radio has to be really, really good.And really, really more than “radio.” 
    Nuff said.

  • http://twitter.com/MediabridgeLive Gairy Callam

    I am tired of hearing the whiners who just don’t get it. But hey Mark, one day they will. As you rightly stated, “radio has to be really, really good.And really, really more than “radio.”
    That hits the nail on the head. The competition is here and it will be even greater in the not too distant future. Doesn’t matter if radio is in Digital Bcasts, Streaming, Mobile. The platform isn’t the greatest issue, What’s on it is. And it’s obvious that the NAB don’t get it. I have radio on my phone. Do i even use it? No, and i am in radio. We need to get real.

  • http://twitter.com/MediabridgeLive Gairy Callam

    I am tired of hearing the whiners who just don’t get it. But hey Mark, one day they will. As you rightly stated, “radio has to be really, really good.And really, really more than “radio.”
    That hits the nail on the head. The competition is here and it will be even greater in the not too distant future. Doesn’t matter if radio is in Digital Bcasts, Streaming, Mobile. The platform isn’t the greatest issue, What’s on it is. And it’s obvious that the NAB don’t get it. I have radio on my phone. Do i even use it? No, and i am in radio. We need to get real.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    Thank you, yes, Gairy.

    And that is, indeed, the point.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    Thank you, yes, Gairy.

    And that is, indeed, the point.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    I am really amazed at the number of people who tell me “I have it on my phone” in a world where we seem to act like NOBODY does.

    The issue isn’t having it or not. The issue is caring that we do.

    Thanks Gairy!

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    I am really amazed at the number of people who tell me “I have it on my phone” in a world where we seem to act like NOBODY does.

    The issue isn’t having it or not. The issue is caring that we do.

    Thanks Gairy!

  • http://twitter.com/GordonMarcy Gordon Marcy

    From the beginning, the objective has been universal access. We can argue ’till the cows come from about the how and when, but it IS coming and SOONER than too many expect.
    With all due respect to RM, I don’t believe Mark screwed the pooch here. He is doing what he does best, trying to help broadcasters with the right stuff beat the ‘demon in the sky’ and successfully launch into cyberspace. Every broadcast executive should have a wall plaque made of this statement: In the Digital Age, radio has be really, really good. And really, really more than “radio.”

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    Thanks Gordon!

  • Mike Nassour

    Ummmm…..would someone explain how my $599 Dell laptop is supposed to transmit the 62 miles BACK TO the access point?

  • Anonymous

    Based on the whitepaper outlining the technology [http://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen4242/802_22/general_info.html], I don’t see this as a viable method of providing internet connectivity to a moving vehicle.

  • http://www.markramseymedia.com Mark Ramsey

    I’m not an engineer, so I can’t assess that. I am reporting third party perspectives, but I can tell you there are much better links than that one.

  • http://futureofradioonline.com/future_trends/how-automakers-will-get-internet-to-cars-reliably/ How Automakers Will Get Internet to Cars Reliably « Future of Radio Online

    [...] Ramsey referred to this in his blog this week.  And while I have mixed feelings about Mark’s commentary sometimes, he certainly [...]

Sign Up For Blog Email Updates

About

MRM President Mark Ramsey has worked with innumerable television and radio broadcasters over his career, including all the biggest names, from Clear Channel, CBS, Bonneville, Sirius XM...

Mark Ramsey