The fate of an important chunk of wireless spectrum in the U.S. is being decided by the FCC, and Google wants to rally public support for turning this spectrum over to unlicensed uses, just like we do today with WiFi. The spectrum in question is the “white spaces” in the analog TV broadcast signal that will no longer be needed once all TV broadcasters shift to digital signals. The white spaces could form the basis for WiFi 2.0, a longer-range wireless technology that wouldn’t be owned by any one company.
Before that can happen, though, Google and other proponents of WiFi 2.0 must prove that they can get around some of the interference issues that may result if the spectrum in question is turned over to unlicensed use. So the FCC has been running some field tests to see what the impact may be. (The results so far are inconclusive). The biggest complainers are companies that make wireless microphones for live events such as concerts and football games.
Google doesn’t want to lose this policy debate to its opponents, who are positioning the proposal as something that will not only interfere with existing licensed wireless devices (something nobody really cares about), but will interfere with the officiating of football games. In other words, it would interfere with America itself.
Well, Google is having none of it. And it’s fighting back with something equally American: YouTube. In a direct appeal to geeks everywhere, it is urging people to upload their own video testimonials to YouTube to show their support for “Free The Airwaves.”
I’m not sure how much good this campaign will do, but there is much to be said about the benefits of creating a new swath of unlicensed spectrum. Look at the success of WiFi, a technology with its own interference issues that is now a basic part of our everyday lives. WiFi has expanded the Internet beyond the reach of an Ethernet cable. WiFi 2.0 could expand it beyond the office or the home. It’s a good idea, and in the grand scheme of things would create a greater public good than any harm it would cause.
And it’s really not an either/or choice anyway. You can have both your wireless referee mics and your Wifi 2.0 because you can always block the unlicensed use in stadiums and other areas.
Here’s Google product manager Minnie Ingersoll explaining what is at stake here:
For the billions spent on licensing, this is a huge push for google. Possibly another attempt to control the market and make lots of money selling advertising.
I am curious to see how it will affect things on a large scale
I think this is great, Wifi 2.0 is great for the greater good of the consumer. No more corporate media strong holds.
“You can have both your wireless referee mics and your Wifi 2.0 because you can always block the unlicensed use in stadiums and other areas.”
Would it be the same thing in Canada? I think that it is illegal to block signal here? (At least, it’s illegal for movie theater to block cell phone signal in Canada.)
Does anyone knows?
A YouTube campaign is a smart way to get grassroots momentum, but it would be better if Google approached policy makers and industry leaders to lobby the FCC more effectively. WiFi 2.0 is a fantastic idea and it would be ideal if those “white spaces” were dedicated to something that would improve Internet use on a grand scale.
Hi, this is a interesting approach to get people on its side. Wondering how many people would actually watch this piece… I have another question though. Do you know whether this is an issue in other countries as well (Germany, France, England e.g.)
What corporations are behind the New America foundation supporting “Free the Airwaves”, except for obviously Google?
Does anybody have any technical info about IP/VHF. It’s certain that line of sight is not as big of an issue as with WiFI or with other very directional tecnologies and this would be perfect for creating networks in cities, where the range of the signal, pretty much depends on the height of the antenna
I guess the VHF spectrum for US TV is currently ranging from 55Mhz up to 88Mhz, does any one know how to calculate what the maximum bitrates would be if we used this lower frequencies, and how much power (electricity) would any member of a IP/VHF network (a regular laptop with a VHF/IP card) need to make a transmission on a city radio (30 miles)
I’ve found that basically, the spectrum would allow for Gigabit bitrates, and pretty much ubiquitous access. Google has offered to keep a geo-location database of what frequencies cannot be used so that the interference problem is gone.
Here’s a great article
http://www.technologyreview.co.....20482/?a=f
Am I the only one who is baffled by Google’s infinite spending on this and other activities unrelated to their revenue–err… profit?
Does anyone take their argument about expanding the internet is expanding profit seriously? I feel like I’m missing something. How does spending billions regularly on items which are far from break-even (you-cough-tube) not cause a shareholder rebellion? Is the PR really worth it?
jon,
Google has figured out that online growth is slowing and they are looking for new places to stick ads.
They are making a big push into wireless so they can bombard you with more advertising.
The Android phone will be jammed with ads. (”This call brought to you by Starbucks”….”You’ll only steps away from a McDonalds”.)
All of their campaigns are cleverly disguised pushes for more places to track you and push ads to you. But all of you Tech Geeks are so taken with Google and their technology that you can’t see through their plans.
Youtube could become Google’s biggest revenue source in the near future, since Youtube is the worlds biggest source for video on the Internet, and video on the Internet is going to replace traditional TV broadcasting.
Jon,
You hardly need to worry about shareholder rebellion if you own 60% of the company, no?
Ludwig Ederle: No, it’s not, because Europe sucks. I doubt that Europe even has Internet access. It was invented in America.
USA #1 USA #1
I would guess the biggest user of wireless mic’s across the country is churches. This would be a much bigger issue than football games. Although both have religious commitments.
I’m surprised to hear so much whining about Google’s ads ruining everyone’s day… because it surely isn’t the case for me. Do these ads really bother you that much, or is it the principle of advertising that you have a problem with? When I have a choice about what media I use & consume, the ads I’m subjected to are an afterthought… if I don’t like the ad jamming, I go somewhere else.
Google benefits when the internet thrives as being free, open, and widespread. Whether or not they make a profit directly off YouTube, the residual good that YouTube has for the internet is residually good for Google.
Critically examining the impact of new technologies is of course important, but don’t be so quick so demonize an effort with Google’s name on it simply because they may also happen to seek profit.
Its a good idea…… and great for the consumer……. etc etc But why is Google all of the sudden the WHITE KNIGHT?? Well…. because if more people have access to the internet from more places, then they will use google more, and lick on their ADS more, and they will make more money. It is just that simple.
Right, this is the premise I was wondering whether anyone takes seriously.
Let me clarify what I believe the premise is NOT:
If we get more people on the internet, or give existing users more ubiquitous access, we will sell more ads.
This on its own does not make sense. What everyone seems to be suggesting is that:
If we get more people on the internet, or give existing users more ubiquitous access, we will sell enough ads not only to pay for our infrastructure investments but to also turn a profit.
Seriously? Dropping billions on public wifi will pay itself back directly?
As for 60% of stock, perhaps a large investor will decide someday to unseat some board members with minority rights.
smart chick
Looks like Google has its eyes on the airwaves agin!
Availability of the spectrum that will be freed up after Feb 2009 is a great resource for Wireless networking. Call it Wifi or something else, the point is it bring that spectrum to usable data-networking space. I don’t understand Google’s motivation that clearly since developing the spectrum to be used for something specific is way beyond Google’s reach today. Also, it will literally take years to get the spectrum range solidified and ratified within the IEEE for data range usage and then the silicon vendors to develop PHY Asics for those frequencies.
Or this would be a big boost for Software Defined Radio vendors to jump in bed with Google to make this work. Sounds like some smart guy in Google’s strategic/corp-dev division is thinking about an SDR acquisition in the next six months and then twelve months later have products from Google in that space with SDR’s embedded.
WOW
SG