Google: White Space Broadband By 2009On the heels of unfulfilled promises comes...some new ones! 02:21PM Monday Mar 24 2008 by Karltags: business · wireless · alternatives · bandwidth · GoogleGoogle convinced the media last week that losing the 700Mhz auction was actually a win, given they got the well-lobbied FCC to enact some loosely worded "open-access" conditions AT&T & Verizon lawyers will sidestep with minimal effort. Before the public could realize that losing wasn't winning -- Google today held a conference call with reporters to claim they'll have white space broadband devices in consumer hands before the end of 2009. The FCC recently began (pdf) another round of "White Space" broadband testing on January 24 after a prototype device failed to detect and avoid nearby transmissions during the first round. A six-partner coalition (including Microsoft, Google and Dell) named the Wireless Innovation Alliance wants to use the so-called "white space" spectrum -- partially freed by the migration to digital television -- to offer un-served consumers cheap Internet access via the airwaves. A working product is obviously the first step to that goal, and so far they've been unable to produce one. Google, who this morning called the technology "Wi-Fi on steroids," insists that the finished products should be able to detect and avoid nearby transmissions, and in a new filing with the FCC (pdf), offer a slew of new proposals aimed at addressing interference concerns from everyone from NAB to the NFL (who worry about mic interference): Under our own enhanced protection proposal, a TV white space device will not transmit on a channel until it first has received an "all clear" signal for that channel, either directly from a database of licensed transmitters in that area, or from a geo-located device with access to that database. . . In addition, we are proposing a "safe harbor" for wireless microphones in channels 36-38. It's doubtful that the provisions will placate NAB, who've been very vocal opponents of the plans because of the possible competitive threat posed by a new content delivery mechanism. Most of this conversation is moot until the FCC testing shows that the devices actually work. The FCC recently extended their recent round of tests, which were originally supposed to be completed by now. Related:- Google, You're a Wireless Tease
- Towerstream 802.16e Launch 'Next Month'
- WiMax As DSL Replacement
- New MEGA-Clearwire CEO Speaks
- Motorola Offers White Space Device For Testing
- Verizon Joins Linux Open Source Coalition
- Free Cablevision Wi-Fi Install Coming Along
- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
|
 |  |  EPS
join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA
| Re: Competitive threat? It seems to have become dogma among people that if an entrenched group of any type opposes something, it's because of fear of competition...
From what I've read of the current state of the TV industry, they seem to be floating in their own little bubble-world, where internet video isn't going to affect TV viewership, a world where (this was an actual claim of NBC) a DVR sped up ad is just as effective as watching the full thing. | |
|  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·Mediacom
| Re: Pushing for UNLICENSED spectrum is the problem said by TK Junk Mail :Google is playing the "we are for the people" card again. We see how well that worked for the recent spectrum auction. I find it humorous how Google becomes more and more of a mouthpiece for consumers' network connections, but fail to follow through with action. Google is becoming a great PR machine as witnessed by the loyal "Google can do no wrong" followers around the Internet. Strange how these same people despise the other PR machines... | |
|  |  amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by TK Junk Mail :If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns. I agree. Why will it be unlicensed? That seems strange when it's the result of freeing up licensed frequencies, and co-mingled among them. Why not license it and make some money?
Mark | |
|  |   MrMoody Under the black helicopters
join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
edit: March 24th, @03:42PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China. If these devices were licensed, I'd have less concerns. For once, I agree 100% with you and the NAB.
The PBS DTV station in my market is almost 50 miles away, and only medium power. To get a good signal requires a high-gain directional antenna 30 ft from the ground.
The "white space" proponents expect me to believe that some cheap device INSIDE a house, behind walls and AT OR BELOW ground level is going to be able to detect this distant UHF signal reliably. I don't believe it and no one can convince me.
But I sure believe that same indoor device will overpower and blank out my distant signal if the neighbor in front of my antenna fires it up on the same frequency, and I will not be happy about it.
And what happens when everyone gets them and all the strong signals are from other local devices?
The ONLY way white space will work without interfering is if it is licensed geographically to channels that are truly unused and unreceivable in that area.
A wireless ISP could be licensed for both transmit and return frequencies each tower is allowed to use. But even if these frequencies are truly unused TV frequencies then there is still a problem - what if I want to start a new TV station and all the channels are gone to wireless data service?
If you want to run a wireless ISP, stop trying to steal the TV bands for no money, you should be bidding on or leasing the frequencies the FCC already took away from TV to be reallocated. -- The public is a poor business manager. | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TK Junk Mail :.... But once these bands are opened to unlicensed devices, all hell can break loose. To expect all manufacturers to cooperate and make sure their devices work properly is a fantasy - especially with all the equipment coming from China.... they have these things called "standards" that work to prevent stuff like that.
plus, if the NAB starts screaming "interference" and can prove it, whoever is causing it is going to get creamed by the regulators.
right now, it's just broadcaster FUD about how this can't work. | |
|  fuziwuzi Not born yesterday
join:2005-07-01 Atlanta, GA | the NAB? In my opinion, if the NAB is against it, then I'm for it. The NAB is just shy of being as much a mafioso as the RIAA/MPAA... they have their anachronistic, failing business model and seek to protect it by spreading as much FUD as they can. | |
|   Truth or dare
@comcast.net
| Incorrect facts The statement that working devices utilizing spectrum sensing have not been presented to the FCC is false. That a power supply fails does not create interference.
In any event, these are "prototypes" of the spectrum sensing approach desigend to help set technical standards. This is not device certification.
Geolocation, as proposed by Google today, is a separate approach than spectrum sensing that can eliminate any interference with some additional overhead. Spectrum sensing is used today in WiFi and it works.
New America notes that 90% of wireless microphones are used illegally. These new approaches are a way for the wireless microphone industry to "get legal".
Get the facts. Then write. | |
|  |   Karl News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
edit: March 24th, @05:02PM
| Re: Incorrect facts The statement that working devices utilizing spectrum sensing have not been presented to the FCC is false. Good thing nobody made that statement, then! 
The first prototype failed to detect and avoid nearby signal, this latest suffered from a power supply failure -- though maybe it subsequently performed ok -- nobody knows because the final results haven't been announced... | |
|  |  |   MattE Obama '08 Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Incorrect facts said by Karl :The statement that working devices utilizing spectrum sensing have not been presented to the FCC is false. Good thing nobody made that statement, then! The first prototype failed to detect and avoid nearby signal, this latest suffered from a power supply failure -- though maybe it subsequently performed ok -- nobody knows because the final results haven't been announced... I believe Microsoft is claiming that the FCC failed to test the backup unit after the primary experienced a hardware failure.
Microsoft is claiming that their tests prove the devices work and the FCC has signed off on the methodology used to test the effectiveness of the devices. | |
|  Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Pittsburgh, PA
| White Spaces are a Statistical Lie Here's what the so called white spaces will look like in Pittsburgh in 2009. With the exception of the low vhf channels 2 - 4 and the already shared spectrum channels of 15 - 17 (14 and 18 are reserved for land mobile in Pittsburgh) every single available white space will be a first adjacent channel to either an area full power TV station or a low power station operating in the city. Digital TV may be less susceptible to adjacent channel interference than analog TV but it is not immune. IOW if the devices can really prevent interference they will be useless in Pittsburgh. | |
|  | |  |
|
|