"Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Vendaval -> "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 11:58:51 AM)

Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi
 
Mon Mar 24, 4:54 PM ET
 
" "As Google has pointed out previously, the vast majority of viable spectrum in this country simply goes unused, or else is grossly underutilized," Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media lawyer, wrote in the letter. "Unlike other natural resources, there is no benefit to allowing this spectrum to lie fallow."

Google said the white space, located between channels 2 and 51 on TV sets that aren't hooked up to satellite or cable services, offer a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide ubiquitous wireless broadband access to all Americans." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_hi_te/google_fcc



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:19:55 PM)

It's been tried before, and the FCC even allowed the companies who made the claim and wanted the spectrum to submit prototype devices that would work.

Everything submitted failed to pass the non-interference test.

When Google is talking about "white space", and the way that the article reads, you'd think they were talking about a lot of unallocated spectrum between those TV channels.  Unfortunately, the spectrum is heavily used, and is definitely NOT unoccupied. 

The areas between transmitters that are far enough away not to interfere with each other (TV stations are the main "big" users of this spectrum), might have some areas that could be used by someone else - but only if they wouldn't not roam into, or cause interference with the existing transmitters.

The major problem is that most of this "white space" is in areas of low population, where Google and other large companies aren't particularly interested in building out a multi-billion dollar network for rural areas.  The heavily populated areas have very little "white space".

Firm



KatyLied -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:32:31 PM)

Google is trying to dominate them:

quote:

TV broadcasters oppose use of white space, fearing such usage would cause interference with television programming and could cause problems with a federally mandated transition from analog to digital broadcasting signals next year. But Google in its letter urged the FCC to adopt a series of overlapping technologies, including "spectrum sensing," designed to prevent signals from interfering with each other.



kittinSol -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:35:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

Google is trying to dominate them:



Kinky.



mnottertail -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:38:00 PM)

apparently in non-consensual fashion, at the present.

Beware!!!!



kittinSol -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:39:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

apparently in non-consensual fashion, at the present.

Beware!!!!


Even better [8D] .



mnottertail -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:42:17 PM)

why don't they want the black space in that fuzz, is it a racial thing or what?


Ron



kittinSol -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 12:49:13 PM)

You've been reading too many Obama threads, Sir.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd lick anybody's boots for more broadband access. I'm not proud :-) .



Vendaval -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 1:03:13 PM)

Is that an offer, a promise or a threat?  [:-]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd lick anybody's boots for more broadband access. I'm not proud :-) .



kittinSol -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 1:07:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Is that an offer, a promise or a threat?  [:-]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd lick anybody's boots for more broadband access. I'm not proud :-) .



It depends on whose boots it is :-) .



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 2:44:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Is that an offer, a promise or a threat?  [:-]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Anyway, for what it's worth, I'd lick anybody's boots for more broadband access. I'm not proud :-) .



It depends on whose boots it is :-) .


Is 10 megs a second good enough?  [:)]

Firm



kittinSol -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 3:07:37 PM)

Shiny shiny, shiny boots of leather, Firm [:-] .



luckydog1 -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 4:55:53 PM)

Isn't that all supposed to change next year, with the digital TV changes?  It will all be white space, and a product to be leased out. 



Termyn8or -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 5:28:51 PM)

They are probably not going to have much luck with low band, which are channels  2-6 and 14-23 on cable. In fact I have been saying they should get rid of VHF all together for years as it is too susceptable to noise. Of course part of the problem is that the video carrier is AM. They could probably do alright with frequency  or phase modulation, something that can be put through a limiter (clipper) stage on the recieving end, but I think the range will suffer anyway.

I don't see why Google would want it anyway, unless they intend to become an ISP, to my knowledge they are not. I could be wrong though.

The other problem with frequencies that low is that FM or PM makes a weird bunch of sidebands, and I think it might get hard to manage. At the higher UHF frequecies everything is so much better, but then I think that is where HDTV is.

Still don't see why though. Google is already a household name. What more do they want. ? Do they hope to become maybe the world's first all wirekess ISP or something ?

I'm sure money is involved of course, but I just don't see the method of collecting it.

T



thornhappy -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 5:58:49 PM)

Maybe their aiming for the Wi-Max biz, which is racking up some failures at the moment, more for the unanticipated cost of the access points and pricing models.

thornhappy



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/25/2008 11:30:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Shiny shiny, shiny boots of leather, Firm [:-] .


Sorry, girl.  I don't switch.  [:D][:D]

Firm



shallowdeep -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/26/2008 12:26:14 AM)

Assorted replies follow:

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It's been tried before ... Everything submitted failed to pass the non-interference test.

Yes... but there were some issues with the test setups. And early prototypes are rarely perfect, improvements are certainly coming. The FCC has not come to any conclusion yet, hence the lobbying from both sides. Testing of prototypes is still ongoing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Unfortunately, the spectrum is heavily used, and is definitely NOT unoccupied. ... The heavily populated areas have very little "white space".

Really? I live in a pretty heavily populated area and only get 22 digital TV channels with a roof mounted antenna. That leaves the majority of the spectrum open (the occasional wireless microphone excepted). Each channel offers roughly 20 Mbps, so even 25 channels (half the spectrum) would still be 500 Mbps. Sharing an, essentially, OC-12 line with the neighborhood doesn't sound too bad... My point is that the technology, while needing work, does have quite a bit of potential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Isn't that all supposed to change next year, with the digital TV changes? It will all be white space, and a product to be leased out.

No. The switch to all digital TV broadcasts opens up some channels as "white space" (those currently being used by analog broadcasts) and makes others unavailable (the 700 MHz spectrum, currently analog TV channels above 51, which has been mostly auctioned off). White space simply refers to ordinarily regulated spectrum that isn't in use; if a channel is in use, the broadcast being analog or digital* is immaterial. The auctioned 700 MHz spectrum may well be used for similar purposes as white space broadband, but it's a separate issue from a regulatory standpoint.

An article on the the white space broadband idea is here.

*Note that radio waves are analog - so over the air broadcasts, even "digital" ones, are still analog communications. The digital part refers to the coding, not the modulation scheme.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I don't see why Google would want it anyway, unless they intend to become an ISP, to my knowledge they are not. ... Still don't see why though. Google is already a household name. What more do they want?


Google actually is a wireless ISP... but only on a small scale, although they've dabbled in other ventures. I think their interest in white space broadband stems more from the fact that they aren't a major internet service provider - yet all of their services are highly reliant on ISPs.

Google has expressed concerns over net neutrality issues and I think they see anything that can reduce the power of ISPs as a good thing. Especially as the services they provide take up more bandwidth, this becomes a concern for them. Wireless broadband has the potential to let alternative service providers enter the market relatively inexpensively, offering competition to traditional ISPs. Google probably hopes to leverage that competition to ensure their services aren't limited. Actually entering the ISP market on a large scale would probably only be a last resort, but it makes for a nice implicit threat - and one they do have the capital to follow through on.

Google's bidding tactics in the recently concluded 700MHz auction give some insight into how they may hope to get open network access with only the threat of building their own network.

Of course, Google is far from alone on promoting white space broadband. Many consumer electronics companies and internet content/service providers are also in favor of the technology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
why don't they want the black space in that fuzz, is it a racial thing or what?

Maybe since we already had dark fiber it was the politically correct move?



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/26/2008 1:00:59 AM)

ahhh, obviously someone else in the industry, I can tell. [sm=hello.gif]

My main point about the white space devices is based on what I've seen about the commitment of the players interested.  The case of Goggle, which had an excellent chance at the 700 MHz band, and essentially decided not to play with the big boys is just an example.  You yourself talk about them using the concept of "white space devices" as a leveraging threat, rather than having serious designs on such a system.

I don't follow the NAB, and the DTV transition closely, only as how it impacts my work sometimes, and is occasionally a source of professional interest in my part of the wireless market, but from my readings over the years, it seems as if all the "white space" proponents have been half assed about it, while being faced with a strong, well funded NAB lobby against it.

Basically, what I meant - and what you seem to be agreeing with - is that while it may be possible, until someone gets serious about it, it's not likely to happen.

The interference issue is also "more real" than a lot of people want to believe too, but that's almost a secondary issue.

As for you having lots of unused TV spectrum, I'm not so sure.  There are other issues that you may not be aware of.  I tried to go to your profile to see what major market you are in, but you profile is turned off.

There are often engineering issues that may prevent the use of every single channel in a market (intermod, adjacent channel interference, and co-channel transmitters, for example), as well as some allocation of UHF TV channels to other uses (particularly PLMR and Medical Devices, and the ... hmmm ...Radio Astronomy? on channel 36 or 37).  Just because you can't watch them on your TV, doesn't mean they aren't being used, or even can be used.

But, I gotta say, it's refreshing to find a knowledgeable individual about the subject. [:)]

Firm



NeedToUseYou -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/26/2008 1:25:19 AM)

My personal opinion is we should just abandon this static transmission model, like right now. I haven't had cable for going on over 3 years or more I can't remember when I cancelled it but at least three years, and you know what, they're finally getting it(old school media companies), I do have a HDTV antenna, but in the last year since I've installed it, I probably watched it a total of 12 hours, it's just to inconvenient to wait for a show, then if you miss it unless you have a tivo, you're screwed(and even then you have to set the Tivo up to record it), or I can just hook my compter to a big monitor(most new tv's have pc inputs now), and watch it whenever I want. I mean this monitor I'm using here for regular internet is like 23 inches, that used to be the size of a TV!, and I have a 40 inch Lcd I could hook up to the computer to watch video, but whats the point, it's big enough already.
Why? because everything is available already, anyplace I want to watch it. What's the point of these static broadcasts, I just don't get it. It seems it's all wasted except for a emergency channel, that's about it.
Anyway, we are about 3 years from cable companies( and over the air) shitting a brick, and being completely obsolete except for internet and phone. I can go on cbs.com right now, and watch about 30 shows, including old ones like star trek, the twilight zone,etc.. Same with Nbc, the old A-team, Alfred HitchCock. Along with most of their new shows though only a couple are more than trash, but hey they finally figured out, duh, that they can monetize all their old garbage programming to, it's just a matter of time, before bandwidth costs collapse to the point to where it makes the model work for putting up everything ever recorded at anypoint in history profitable with ad revenues(why do you think google wanted Youtube?, because bandwidth costs will do nothing but decrease with time then it'll be hugely profitable, now it's just bleeding cash).
My sports loving friend, already almost exclusively goes to ESPN.com and doesn't even watch ESPN the cable network. So, it's spreading like a slow plague, all this static broadcast upgrade crap is just a flash in the pan to support a dead model and sell some tv's.
Now what they should do is take all that spectrum and hand it over to internet only use exclusively. Grandma would just have to install a dumb down box to play the internet sites  video only, in a old style fashion and be none the wiser.

This whole HDTV thing is waste of money in my view. Yeah, the internet can't handle HDTV right now, but in a few years it'll be getting deadly close to it. And a few after that it'll be old hat, And a few after that you'll be able to run multiple simultaneous HD streams. All this infrastructure is being built and bought for a useful lifespan of what 6 years at max, and an optimal usefulness of 3 or less years. LOL. I wouldn't be investing in that crap.

AT&T and Verizon are rolling out the fiber pretty heavy and verizon is offering 15Megabits up and down. Now that's cool, and will be 30 Megabits in a couple years given the past trend on these things.

Anyway, just free the airwaves for real public communication, they are our airwaves after all and static broadcasts are so last century, and with universal wi-fi, cellphone access would also be universally free.

I think we all got screwed on this HDTV rollout, it's investing in antiquated technology before it's even rolled out.

Personally I'd trade a hand full of HD channels today for an infinite number of DVD quality video streams today. But that's just me.

If there was one new federally funded program I could see being useful it would be universal broadband access. It's useful to everyone, so benefits everyone. And it'd also help productivity, and would create actual profitable jobs in the process, instead of workfare.

It wouldn't have to be 20 megabits a second to be useful, It just would have to be a few megabits everywhere to be useful and do nearly everything a person could want. So, it wouldn't  interfere with real internet companies by the time they would build it out because by then the commerical fiber lines would be offering 30 megabits a second but at least you could call anyone from anywhere for free, check your e-mail anywhere, look up shit anywhere, watch a near dvd quality stream anywhere. Oh but we are going to waste it on HDTV. A useless trivial novelty. Seems pointless.





FirmhandKY -> RE: "Google wants TV 'white space' for wi-fi" (3/26/2008 1:45:10 AM)

Not bad, NeedToUse.

I'm not sure that the cost of bandwidth will continue to go down, although if you have some figures for that, I'd believe you.

I currently watch most of my video via the internet as well, although I tend to download and store them.  Just this weekend, I downloaded the entire Babylon 5 series - all five seasons - and am looking for the movies.

I've currently got about 5 terabytes of HD storage, most of it full of songs, audio books, ebooks, movies and TV shows (how about the entire 11 seasons of MASH?, all of Stargate SG1?  Every episode of STTNG? Everyone Loves Raymond?).  I also have the complete Ken Burns "The War" series.  Eventually I'll watch it all.  His "Civil War" is in my download que.  I've download the entire HBO's "The Wire" series for one of my sons, and the entire "The Tudors" for a friend.

I plan on buying more HD space, the next time Bestbuy runs another special. [:D]

When will I ever have the time to actually sit down and watch broadcast TV?

Dunno.  Don't care. 

Firm



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875