Public Policy Blog

Updates on technology policy issues

Considerable promise for Internet access in TV "white spaces"

Thursday, August 16, 2007
Share on Google+ Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google
Labels: Public Policy Blog , Telecom , White Spaces

5 comments :

  1. Darnell ClaytonAugust 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM

    Thanks for posting about this Google!

    I am currently looking for a new internet carrier (and will perhaps consider wireless internet).

    The one I currently have was "okay," until they recently got bought out by a larger company known for treating its customers like dog food.

    I'd switch away in a heart beat, except for the fact that my only other option is a company that is just as bad. :-(

    Here's to hoping that you (and Microsoft, Dell, Earthlink, etc.) can rescue us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  2. NYC Community Fiber ProjectAugust 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM

    Much like the Fed spurs financial investment by lowering interest rates, the FCC should spur broadband development by open up new technological opportunities, such as allowing whitespace-based wireless techniques to be developed.

    I hope the Chairman of the FCC will step up to this challenge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  3. "Dale"August 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM

    Thanks for posting on this, Richard. Unlicensed spectrum use and maximizing the utility of whitespaces are critically important spectrum-management issues that seem to continually get lost in the ballyhoo of the 700 MHz battles.

    It's a shame it takes the weight of multibillion-dollar industries to get the FCC to consider changing the way it allocates spectrum -- the "public interest" crowd can holler for years to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  4. fusionSeptember 11, 2007 at 5:13 PM

    Google and partners must continue testing equipment and showing clear no-interference service,go for it ! , the TV Networks Spectrum belongs to the Taxpayers,all of them,the Broadcasters and TV Studios-Corp.-Networks never paid a dollar for the spectrum, how can they tell the owners,the taxpayers,what they can or cannot do with their Spectrum? take it to the people!... and remember that the Hollywood Studios,the neocon lobby and the TV Networks are the same team and they will put their own people inside your team to know how you are doing ,watch it ! and good luck !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  5. UnknownAugust 19, 2008 at 3:30 AM

    Unfortunatly at 2 recent tests of the equipment, one at a pro football game and the other at Phantom of the Opera in NYC, the devices essentially failed! They showed several false posititves for nearby transmissions. They also missed some transmissions, which likely would have meant that the whitespace devices (had their transmitters actually been turned on) would have stepped all over the wireless systems in use by the events.

    Also TV studios do pay for their airwaves. They have to buy a license and keep it current.

    Taking away the so called whitespace, who is that really going to hurt? Small local and regional broadcasters that is who. Does anyone really think that some small local interest TV channel is going to be capable of competing finacially with the likes of Google and M$? Please!

    This whole site is just a marketing campain to convice Joe user to call his congressperson to help Google get what they want so they can make big bucks! That's all.. plain and simple!

    The FCC has already sold off plenty of bandwidth to these giants. We have already lost about 12 UHF TV channels at least worth of bandwidth. Who did that get sold to? Big wireless companies and some was spared for emergency government communications.

    This campain is not about returning anything to the people.

    If you want your cool wireless stuff at the cost of throwing away all your wireless microphone technology well, then sign away at that petition. But don't be delusional in thinking that Google and MS and all the other players have anything but their own self interest in mind here.

    Richard Ingraham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
Add comment
Load more...

The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.

  

Labels


  • Accessibility 5
  • Ad 2
  • Advertising 11
  • AdWords 2
  • Anti-defamation league 1
  • Book Search 16
  • Broadband 11
  • Business Issues 26
  • Buzz 1
  • buzzemail 1
  • Canada 1
  • Child Safety 18
  • Chrome 1
  • Cloud Computing 2
  • Competition 19
  • Congress 10
  • Constitute 1
  • copyright 7
  • Cuba 1
  • Cybersecurity 9
  • D.C. Talks 16
  • Digital Due Process 1
  • Digital Playbook 1
  • Economic Impact 5
  • Economy 13
  • ECPA 4
  • Elections 24
  • email 1
  • Energy Efficiency 29
  • Europe 2
  • FCC 7
  • fellowship 2
  • Fighting Human Trafficking 1
  • Free Expression 54
  • Geo 1
  • Gmail 1
  • GNI 2
  • Good to Know 5
  • Google Fellow 2
  • Google for Entrepreneurs 1
  • Google Ideas 2
  • Google Maps 1
  • Google Policy Fellowship 1
  • Google Tools 78
  • Government Transparency 33
  • Hate Speech 1
  • Health 5
  • How Google Fights Piracy 1
  • Human trafficking 1
  • Identity theft 1
  • Immigration 1
  • Intellectual Property 19
  • International 46
  • Journalists 1
  • Malware 1
  • Maps 1
  • National Consumer Protection Week 1
  • Net Neutrality 24
  • Patents 5
  • piracy. ad networks 2
  • Politicians at Google 11
  • Politics 23
  • Privacy 93
  • Public Policy 1
  • Public Policy Blog 806
  • Safe Browsing 3
  • scams 1
  • search 3
  • Security 17
  • Small Businesses 3
  • spectrum 4
  • State Issues 5
  • Surveillance 6
  • Technology for Good 1
  • Telecom 71
  • Trade 3
  • Transparency Report 4
  • White Spaces 23
  • WiFi Network 1
  • Workforce 5
  • Yahoo-Google Deal 5
  • YouTube 4
  • YouTube for Government 1


Archive


  •     2016
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
  •     2015
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2014
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2013
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2012
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2011
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2010
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2009
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2008
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2007
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr

Feed

Give us feedback in our Product Forums.

Company-wide

  • Official Google Blog
  • Europe Blog
  • Student Blog

Products

  • Android Blog
  • Chrome Blog
  • Lat Long Blog

Developers

  • Developers Blog
  • Ads Developer Blog
  • Android Developers Blog
  • Google
  • Privacy
  • Terms