Google outlines proposal for 'Wi-Fi on steroids'
Google on Monday said it has a plan to have American consumers from Manhattan to rural North Dakota surfing the Web on handheld gadgets at gigabits-per-second speeds by the 2009 holiday season.
The company, joined by other heavyweights like Microsoft and Dell, has long been lobbying for the Federal Communications Commission to free up unused broadcast TV channels known as "white spaces" for unlicensed use by personal devices. That portion of the TV band is highly prized because it can propagate long distances and through obstacles.
It also possesses the bandwidth to support vastly faster data rates than today's standard Internet service offerings--"Wi-Fi on steroids" or "Wi-Fi 2.0," as Richard Whitt, Google's telecommunications counsel, put it in a Monday morning conference call.
In a renewed effort to get the FCC on board with the idea, Google filed a six-page letter late on Friday that attempts to erase lingering concerns from TV broadcasters and microphone manufacturers about harmful interference caused by the entry of new devices.
"We're doing this because we want everybody to be satisfied with this process," Whitt said. "We think it's the right time to put these ideas in the record and see where they go."
Google isn't interested in becoming a wireless service provider or building a network of its own, Whitt said. It does, however, envision the white spaces as a "unique opportunity to provide ubiquitous wireless access for all Americans" and a prime spot for use of mobile handsets running its open-source Android platform. Google hopes to start rolling out Android devices, which are being developed in conjunction with a 34-company consortium, as soon as summer or fall of this year, Whitt said.
Even if the FCC signs off, the offerings wouldn't be immediate. The spectrum won't be ready for use until at least February 2009, when over-the-air broadcasters are required to vacate that band as part of the congressionally mandated shift to all-digital television.
The FCC also isn't expected to issue any rules for use of the spectrum for another several months, Whitt said. Agency engineers are still testing early-stage devices submitted by Microsoft and Phillips for interference issues.
Avoiding interference
In hopes of nudging that process in its favor, Google's new filing describes a multipronged approach aimed at avoiding interference. Building upon suggestions made in a filing by Motorola last fall, it said any new unlicensed TV white-spaces devices would be blocked from transmitting signals unless they had received a sort of "permission to transmit" message. Wireless microphones could also be outfitted with "inexpensive" beacons that would send out a signal to white-spaces devices that says " don't come here," by Whitt's description.
In addition, Google proposes setting up a "safe harbor," between channels 36 and 38, where unlicensed white-space devices would not be allowed to operate, but wireless microphones and other licensed devices would. It also urges the FCC not to discount the promise of "spectrum-sensing" technologies, which, for example, are supported by 802.11a-based Wi-Fi to protect military radars from interference.
Google also offered to provide no-cost "technical support" to third parties hoping to use the white spaces, should they be opened up.
Even if the regulators ultimately approve use of the white spaces, "no product will come to market unless the FCC can verify that the device does not interfere with TV or wireless microphone signals," Whitt said.
Representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Google's renewed white-spaces push comes just days after the FCC ended an auction of the remaining portion of the 700MHz broadcast TV spectrum that's being vacated for the digital switch next year. The company had been active in the event, lobbying beforehand for "open-access" conditions allowing consumers to attach whatever devices or run whatever applications they please.
The search giant had committed to bidding $4.6 billion for the "open-access" spectrum block, but last week, the FCC announced that it was Verizon Wireless, not Google, that had won those licenses.
Whitt said he couldn't say the proposal had nothing to do with the auction results, but because of FCC rules, he isn't able to comment further on Google's involvement in the auction until the end of next week.
slide by and nom their profits away bite-by-byte? My gutt and
logic meter are telling me that this could happen, especailly
since the infrastructure for such an environment would must
cheaper to maintain than curren fiber networks, but it's going to
have to make someone a dime. We live in a capitalist republic,
not a socialist commune.
That being said, I also see this idea as being nowhere near
secure enough for government agencies to trust with sensitive
information. No, fiber will be around for a good long time
before competing businesses and government agencies trust
their data to wireless transmissions.
If anyone is going to post in response, what effect do you think
this would have on LANs?
Having said that, the datarate that the 700MHz spectrum can support is not as high as what cable or DSL can provide. So, someone who wants or needs a high quality connection will still have to get it piped in through cable.
This is purely an extension, and next logical step, of their core business: Advertising.
This proposal includes the infrastructure (location based services) that would enable targeted mobile marketing and advertising.
Throw in Google Checkout for mobile payments, and you squeeze mFoundry and Firethorn into banking/brokerage only solutions.
Think Starbucks and Apple's proposed order entry and fulfillment solution.
CNET, next time a company you're profiling tells you they have a product on "steroids" respond by saying, ?Oh, so your product has a lot of acne and shrunken testicles.?
We have to put a moratorium on "______ on steroids."
Who's with me?
More about my rant here: http://www.sparkminute.com/?p=275
Have a good one.
Ooops...Hold On! I have Clearwire. It gives me Wi-Max speeds. And it's available for use anywhere with a mobile PCM card.
Maybe Google should work on fixing its search engine and business model...
- yeah cause they're really doing badly in those fields aren't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
The 8-VSB signal is fragile! Unlike the European COFDM digital television transmission system, ours is easily damaged by multipath and by "cross-modulation" effects. The latter are the problem here.
The FCC's planning for DTV included several things. They were: 1) Mast mounted outdoor antennas located 30 feet above the ground for DTV reception. 2) Mast mounted pre-amplifiers to make up for the loss inherent in the transmission line between the antenna and the TV receiver. 3) The mast mounted antenna is rotatable to optimize reception int the presence of multipath.
Do you live in a place where you can install such an antenna system? If so, you are very fortunate, because many people live in places where outdoor antennas of almost any kind EXCEPT for those 18 inch satellite antennas are banned. The ONLY reason those 18 inch antennas are legal is the federal government pre-empted the local zoning and deed covenants written into most areas of the country where Cable TV companies are.
In case you aren't aware of it, this is the mechanism used by the Cable industry to force people into doing business with them. These deed covenants and zoning rules were instigated at the behest of the Cable industry, and at this moment, something like 75% of the people who watch broadcast television, actually see their local TV station through either a Cable TV system or through one of those 18 inch dishes.
But not everyone has Cable or wants to pay anywhere from $1 to $4 per day FOREVER to a Cable TV company or to a satellite TV company.
But what protects those people who try to receive DTV broadcast signals from what is called BFO (Brute Force Overload) interference? Here is a link to report by the engineering firm of Hammett and Edison regarding an interference situation that happened in the San Francisco Bay Area.
http://www.h-e.com/pdfs/mm00-39sinc_ep.pdf
I suggest that everyone read the Hammett and Edison comments to the FCC regarding DTV tuner performance. because this bears directly on whether or not the "white space" can be used without harming the reception of weak 8-VSB signals with a set top antenna in close proximity to a "white space" transmitter. When that transmitter is transmitting, what protects that nearby receive from Brute Force Overload?
Why not look at using some of the "white space" in the 100 MHz wide 700 to 800 MHz band? It is possible to put a low pass filter at the input of the DTV tuner, to protect it from BFO, but signals within the TV bands cannot be easily filtered out to protect the 8-VSB signal that the TV viewer is trying to watch from damage.
With NTSC, it was possible to view a television signal with all manner of interference present, in part because one could re-orient the receiving antenna to minimize the interference. With DTV, when a receiver is not "locked" there is no way to know where the interference is coming from nor can you see if you have reduced the interference until you suddenly see a picture. And just as suddenly, the picture that appeared can vanish again. So how does someone whose DTV reception is damaged by those unlicensed "white space" devices know where the interference is coming from? And how can that person mitigate the interference so they can watch their TV set without having their favorite program suddenly disappear?
Do you know if anything came of the Petition?
--Michael
- No Wireless... Please!
- by UITD March 25, 2008 7:40 AM PDT
- I do not do wireless. I dont trust wireless. You can NOT secure wireless - dont let anyone tell you about how great WEP is. For every people touting wireless security there are 3 enterprising teenagers who can and WILL crack it. Just sit in a Mc Donalds on a day when school is off and listen to them discuss how they do this.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by jerrystroud May 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT
- Any broadband connection can be pinged/hacked, etc. You real protection is a good firewall in your computer. WEP, WPA, etc can all be broken by Airsnort and other code cracking programs. Your biggest problem is Trojans, viruses, and the US government. You might be able to stop the Trojans and virus, but you will not keep the government our of your computer or life. If you have super secret data in your computer you are either in military services, running drugs, in the Mafia, selling child porn, or a Jihadist. Most Americans do not have much to hide. Banking data has a 128 bit encryption, which only the NSA can access with a warrent. Usually if bank accounts are improperly accessed, it is because the user gave the on line crooks thier passwords, account numbers, social security numbers, etc.
- Like this
-
(13 Comments)Sorry. My personal and financial AND MY CLIENTS' data, as well, is far too important to trust in the open air like that. I dont even like using a cell phone. I dont trust any security because, well, no one gives a crap - to be honest. They SAY they do but really people... open your eyes.
When I see WIRED communications getting near-perfect security then I may reconsider. Until then, it doesnt bother me one bit that I need to walk over to a computer instead of needing instant access wherever I am.
There's just no need for it.