Disadvantages of WRAN

Traditional media and technology blogs have fled with the reporting of the recent approval given to the IEEE for using the supposed “white spaces” present in the UHF and VHF TV channels for wireless standard recognized as 802.22 that claim to be able to cover area of 100 km around the transmitter point. The theory said to install a router that will enhance the coverage of personal broadband with extra 62 square miles however practically it doesn’t seem feasible.

In reality local home consumers do not have any advantage of this new technology. The intention of introducing this new standard is to fetch the far off consumer at global platform. In easy language, WRAN is for rural areas where cable, DSL, and broadband technologies are not able to reach. The local consumer has no benefit of this WRAN. After continuous pressure by the companies like Google, Motorola and many other, FCC has been approved its used since last year. The approval is for those unused low frequencies present in useless form. However the use of WRAN is not easy and without permission. It needs a provision certificate that will be located by GPS to record the exact location of each transmission site with a central coordinating body. It is compulsory for the providers to release the channels in case of interference found because of WRAN. There is an alternative approach to access the channel one after another yet significant limitations in the number of available white spaces in existing channels occupied by different television broadcasting companies.

Theories are showing bright future prospects for the WRAN implementation but practically its application seems very rare and in rural areas with signs of little or no local broadcaster to respond. Considering the FCC amendments for the unlicensed use of white spaces, many of these are already grasped by American mobile companies, leaving even fewer open channels for this type of wireless broadband. There are very few chances in large urban areas that many channels available for IEEE 802.22 standard. Currently, FCC determines these networks cannot operate in a broadcast channel or channels occupied adjacent to each side. A channel 31 occupied in a city cannot let 32, and 30 channels to be operated by WRAN.

Now if we see the bandwidth offered to WRAN for individual consumer. A channel with 6MHz bandwidth can offer a real 12 Mbps service to a user. The IEEE specifies a maximum speed of 22 Mbps, but it is only in theories and seems nearly impossible as the consumer is very far from the transmitter and the available bandwidth is not capable to access it. Suppliers are going to make packs of multiple users for every channel. A number of customers while using the service probably would be half to 1.5 Mbps that is not a saturated level at good high speed and become equal to DSL speed. Overvaluation subscription for the network and use of the available channel at the same time this will surely sacrifice the speed. The increase in the subscription over transmitter would decrease the speed comprehensively.

There is one solution provide to this speed problem by adding more transmitter to increase the speed but installation of so many transmitter is depended on the availability of white spaces. There number of transmitters are proportional to available white spaces the limit cannot be exceeded. It is therefore only limited to rural areas where users are few and TV channels are less and periodical. Local users are not supposed to access this service and have to wait for some new advancement in the utilization of white spaces.