Comments on: Google outlines proposal for 'Wi-Fi on steroids'
New plan designed to persuade regulators to free up unused TV spectrum known as "white spaces" for high-bandwidth, affordable, ubiquitous wireless Internet services.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
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.