Google Launches White Space Broadband WebsiteLobbying fight heats up over alternative broadband delivery method... ( old news - 12:05PM Monday Aug 18 2008) tags: competition · fcc · business · wireless · alternatives · GoogleMicrosoft, Google and Dell have formed the backbone of a six-partner coalition named the Wireless Innovation Alliance. Their goal is to use the so-called unlicensed "white space" spectrum -- partially freed by the migration to digital television -- to offer un-served consumers inexpensive Internet access via the airwaves (with these companies obviously providing the hardware, software and most importantly to Google: ads). Google co-founder Larry Page has dubbed the technology "Wi-Fi on steroids," and has declared that he's " 100 percent confident" that white space broadband is inevitable. Unfortunately, initial FCC tests of the technology's transmission detection and avoidance capability have been hit and miss (though dependent on who you ask). The push also has some very deep pocketed opponents. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) have gone to great lengths to argue that white space broadband is akin to interference armageddon (check out their new website for a glimpse of their lobbying tactics), but it's also likely the group simply doesn't want a new broadcast alternative. Meanwhile, incumbent phone companies, equally afraid of competition, would prefer this spectrum is licensed and auctioned off (because they know they'd win). To help in their fight for white space broadband, Google has launched a new website named FreeTheAirwaves.com. With the FCC set to decide on the use of such white space spectrum shortly, Google is using the website to nudge customers to sign a petition to the FCC, and offers video testimonials from more than a dozen Google policy partners explaining why they think the push is important. Google is relatively upfront about "why they care": Google launched this website because we believe strongly that freeing the white spaces is crucial to the future of the Internet. Make no mistake: open access to this unused bandwidth would surely be good for our own bottom line (not to mention those of many of our industry peers); better access to the Internet means more people doing web searches and using our software products. It has been interesting to watch Google take a crash course in the ways of telecom lobbying, given just a few years ago they had virtually no lobbying presence. Of course all the lobbying in the world doesn't help if the FCC's lab tests (currently being conducted in rural portions of Maryland) show the technology interferes with neighboring broadcasts. Full test results are expected sometime in the next few weeks.
Related:- FCC Proceeds Cautiously With White Space Testing
- Google: White Space Tests Were 'Rigged'
- FCC Engineers Say White Space Broadband Works
- Clearwire CEO: FCC Approval Would Be 'Good Policy.'
- White House Opposes Free Wireless Broadband Plan
- NAB Sues FCC Over White Space Broadband
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
|
 wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | I signed. I'm sick of corporate greed. Time to get back to people helping others, instead of people helping themselves...
cw | |
|  | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: I signed. said by wentlanc  :I'm sick of corporate greed. And you think Google isn't part of the corporate need for high profits? Get real. | |
| | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: I signed. said by GOLFnSUN :said by wentlanc :I'm sick of corporate greed. And you think Google isn't part of the corporate need for high profits? Get real. The difference is, they are up front about it.
People are tired of getting screwed by un-fees, bills they can't understand, early termination fees, bills that wind up 25% higher do to said fees, draconian limits imposed on what they can/can't do with the service they purchased. All these things are coming from a few large communications companies, with the Bells being the worst offenders.
There is a growing animosity toward corporations and pro-corporation government bodies that is going to shake the whole system up. People, especially the younger generation, are tired of feeling like we don't have a voice.
My ass hurts, doesn't yours?
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I signed. said by Matt :People are tired of getting screwed by un-fees, bills they can't understand, early termination fees, bills that wind up 25% higher do to said fees, draconian limits imposed on what they can/can't do with the service they purchased. Google's ISP offerings are much better. Oh wait...they'd rather do a lot of blog blabbing instead of opening their coffers to build a utopian network for the poor downtrodden consumers. Too bad Google isn't willing to put their money where their mouth says their beliefs are. | |
| | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: I signed. said by openbox9 :said by Matt :People are tired of getting screwed by un-fees, bills they can't understand, early termination fees, bills that wind up 25% higher do to said fees, draconian limits imposed on what they can/can't do with the service they purchased. Google's ISP offerings are much better. Oh wait...they'd rather do a lot of blog blabbing instead of opening their coffers to build a utopian network for the poor downtrodden consumers. Too bad Google isn't willing to put their money where their mouth says their beliefs are. The sad part is, they still have a better record than the telcos.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: I signed. Google's customer service is essentially zero- they keep all their products in beta (case in point: Gmail) so they don't have to deal with people. | |
| | | | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: I signed. said by EPS :Google's customer service is essentially zero- they keep all their products in beta (case in point: Gmail) so they don't have to deal with people. No support eh?
---
Hello,
Thank you for your report. We are aware of this problem, and our engineers are working diligently to find a solution.
If you've set Gmail to always use https and you're using the Gmail Notifier on a PC, you'll need to install an additional file.
1. Visit »google.com/mail/help/downloads/n···ttps.reg
2. Open the file.
3. Double click on the notifier_https.reg file.
4. Click 'yes' when you're asked to confirm if you want to add the information to the registry.
5. Restart the Notifier.
If you decide you no longer want to use the https setting, you'll need to install the other file included in the download to reset the Notifier. Use the same method as above with notifier_https_undo.reg.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
---
Hrm, they sent me a fix, for a beta product, that is free. Yeah, that is completely unacceptable.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
| | | | | | 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| said by Matt :said by openbox9 :said by Matt :People are tired of getting screwed by un-fees, bills they can't understand, early termination fees, bills that wind up 25% higher do to said fees, draconian limits imposed on what they can/can't do with the service they purchased. Google's ISP offerings are much better. Oh wait...they'd rather do a lot of blog blabbing instead of opening their coffers to build a utopian network for the poor downtrodden consumers. Too bad Google isn't willing to put their money where their mouth says their beliefs are. The sad part is, they still have a better record than the telcos. Not only that, but Gmail essentially unlocked webmail as we know it today. Even if you don't use it, you're using a byproduct of it. Everyone is increasing space and offerings. Remember when some email offerings actually cost you money? Eudora, I'm looking at you. | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| I know they are, but the also give back. I'm getting free email, and searches from them with relatively few strings attached.
What am I getting from telco's and cablecos? Fewer options, forced bundles, contracts, bait and switch, capping, fapping, filtering, and a lack of competition. I'll opt out, thanks....
cw | |
| | | | probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
1 edit | It's time for Google to shut up They had a chance to bid in the last spectrum auction, and chose essentially not to by putting in a single bid. Google wants a free ride on everyone else's infrastructure in order to sell ads.
Can anyone do a back of the envelop calculation on how much bandwidth this opens up (in order to save the internet)? ATSC is ~19 mbit/sec on a 6mhz channel, so that doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot of bandwidth without implementing a cellular-like system, which implies that this is going to cost a lot of money to implement. | |
| | | | | 
jinjimbob
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13 | Re: No yep! | |
| | afiggatt
join:2007-07-12
Sterling, VA
| said by MrMoody :I still don't think it's possible to make these things so they don't interfere with distant broadcasts, and even if they do, once the floodgates are opened, substandard, interfering devices will eventually find their way into the market. It's tough enough to get a clean digital TV signal as it is. Agreed. This has the potential to destroy even medium range digital TV reception. How will a white space box inside a house detect the signal from a distant station that the neighbor picks up with a high gain antenna in the attic or on the roof?
One item I have not seen discussed is how these white space communications will detect analog stations? After the full power station analog shutdown, there will still be 1000s of low power (LP) stations and translators (TX) broadcasting in analog. The conversion plan for the LPs and TXs has still to be finalized, but the reported plan is that they will have until 2012 to go all digital. They should table these devices until all TV broadcasting is digital. Which still doesn't address usage along the Mexican border as Mexico currently has a 2020 or so final digital conversion date for TV broadcasts. | |
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| i suggest that you figure out what they want to do. a 'white space' device would NOT transmit in a frequency band already in use. so i don't know where you pulled this BS from, but i have an idea of it would make it harder to tune to a DTV channel. from my understanding, the atsc performs fairly well with interference, assuming the pilot carrier is intact, if it isn't, well that channel is pretty much killed for any reciever. again, i suggest you figure out that 'white space' and 'white space' devices are before you spread your FUD. | |
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: No A 'white space' device is not SUPPOSED to transmit on a frequency band already in use. The problem is the reliability of the systems that detect whether said spectrum band is in use. | |
| | | 
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| said by cornelius785 :a 'white space' device would NOT transmit in a frequency band already in use. 1. I'm pulling this from my knowledge and experience as a licensed radio amateur. I don't believe it can reliably tell if a frequency is in use from 40-60 miles away requiring a high gain antenna high in the air to see it (UHF is not much better than line of sight), with the whitespace device sitting at ground level with a rubber stub or internal antenna with no gain or less. FCC tests to this point have borne this out. There's only one way to reliably tell: have the FCC license them geographically.
2. It doesn't need to transmit on a frequency in use to cause interference/signal loss on close by frequencies. Enough signal overwhelms and desensitizes the receiver. The signal levels required to send data for miles far exceeds that used by current Part 15 devices. »www.mstv.org/static.html
3. Everyone wanting this is wishing for things that are NOT going to happen even if it goes forward. TK and others may be evil, but they are still right. The best you will get is another costly, limited EVDO type mobile system. Microsoft & friends just want to get into the cell business on the cheap. Competition for wired internet: no, not enough bandwidth for large numbers of customers, it will be just like satellite. Wired service will always be far superior. Rural service: no, the providers will only be interested in densely populated areas, just like everything else, and again it will be no better than satellite even if the service did reach them.
I'm all about rural internet, we seriously need it, but TV band radio service is not the answer.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. | |
| | | | 
pissed
@direcpc.com
| Re: No i dont know if this is the answer or not ,but its a damn shame that everybody cant get real broadband.im 5 miles out of town dsl stops 1700 feet from me.cable will never extend to me without me paying 10,000 dollars for it that also stops 1/2 mile from me on the same road.I have hughes satt that is very expensive and not better than dialup speed half the time.if tellco will get off their ass and add dslams then we would not even need this,but something is going to have to be done to provide real broadband to everyone,mabey they just use the ham bands too it is not used for nothing but bs.I have been in public safety for 20 years and have never used or have ever seen ham used for nothing but wannabe storm chasers or private conversations,and by the way i am a ham operator myself and would gladely give it up to real broadband | |
| | | | |
pissed
@direcpc.com | Re: No another thing if it wasnt for all the crybaby ham operators we all would have broadband over power lines and everybody with power could get it,but they had it shut down thanks | |
| | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: No said by pissed :
another thing if it wasnt for all the crybaby ham operators we all would have broadband over power lines and everybody with power could get it,but they had it shut down thanks
BPL shut BPL down. The hype didn't live up to the reality. The fact that you say we would all have BPL and "everybody with power could get it" shows you don't know too much about it. | |
| | | | | | |
pissed
@charter.com | Re: No it worked fine where it was tested,ham operators said it was interfering with their radios bs.thats what pl,s and squelch is for | |
| | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: No said by pissed :
it worked fine where it was tested,ham operators said it was interfering with their radios bs.thats what pl,s and squelch is for
{sigh} 
PL is only used on VHF and UHF repeaters. BPL doesn't affect UHF repeaters or 2 meter VHF and 6 meter VHF repeaters are few and far between. And regarding squelch, you can't squelch out a 20dB over S9 interfering signal on HF.
Again, your words tell me you've never done anything more than 2 meters, and your view on BPL is quite uninformed, especially if you're a ham, which I really doubt. The fact is BPL did interfere and it's documented. Do some research about BPL and ham radio. | |
| | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by pissed :
,mabey they just use the ham bands too it is not used for nothing but bs.I have been in public safety for 20 years and have never used or have ever seen ham used for nothing but wannabe storm chasers or private conversations,and by the way i am a ham operator myself and would gladely give it up to real broadband
Your post would have some credibility if you provided a callsign, gave some indication you've experienced something more than 2 meters or are actually active in amateur radio, and used at least fourth grade punctuation and grammar. | |
| | | | | |
pissed
@charter.com | Re: No now why would i do that im not stupid | |
| | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: No said by pissed :
now why would i do that im not stupid
You can PM your callsign to me since you're not stupid. If you're in the US, they start with a K, W, N, or A, one or two letters in the prefix, a number, and then one to three letters afterwords. Check QRZ.com or the FCC ULS to make sure it's a valid and active callsign. | |
| | | | | | | |
pissed
@direcpc.com
| Re: No it doesn't matter if i post my callsign or not.you still would not know it was mine.I dont have to prove anything to anyone especially anyone on a stupid forum board that doesn't mean anything
as for the testing on hf.I saw all of it,and didn't see test done in the same areas before bbl was up and running just after.which didn't tell me anything as you know interference can come from many different things | |
| | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | Re: No said by pissed :
it doesn't matter if i post my callsign or not.you still would not know it was mine.I dont have to prove anything to anyone especially anyone on a stupid forum board that doesn't mean anything Quite true. Even if you did post a callsign, you've shown with your posts that you're not very experienced as an amateur.
as for the testing on hf.I saw all of it,and didn't see test done in the same areas before bbl was up and running just after.which didn't tell me anything as you know interference can come from many different things
This is the "HF interference can come from many things" defense and was used several times by utilities and debunked (the most notable was from a utility in PA that claimed neon signs made the interference....in a residential neighborhood). Somehow it was just coincidence that all the OFDM-based BPL systems had carriers neatly spaced 1.2 kHz apart all over the HF bands, and spread-spectrum based BPL systems happened to have hash all over the HF bands and the signal levels increased near BPL feedpoints. It's all documented (read the numerous FCC NPRM and NOI filings) and you're bit late with your capitalization-challenged revisionist claims. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
country living
@charter.com
| Re: No I don't know much about it,but I do have friends that use UHF and vhf ham repeaters,and all i have seen them do is talk BS to each other,and occasionally talk about the weather,and half of them don't even know what the hell they are talking about.
I can get better information of the weather channel.I also understand hf is used for long distance so tell me what good is ham radio.IM my opinion every American deserves affordable broadband more than we need amateur radio,also not one fire,police,or EMS departments use ham radio they have their own repeaters | |
| | | | | |
pissed
@charter.com | im not a typer,tried to use spell check but wouldnt work due to hughes net 5pm to 12am throttle down to dialup speed | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by cornelius785 :i suggest that you figure out what they want to do. a 'white space' device would NOT transmit in a frequency band already in use. That's the kicker, determining what frequency isn't in use. It can be difficult for a device to accurately predict what other receivers are actually receiving. If the whitespace device has a lower receiver sensitivity and/or antenna gain compared to a potential local interference victim, it could make wrong frequency selection decisions. If the frequency selection algorithm is also frequency database-based as I seem to recall was mentioned back when this was originally thought up, that would help though it's not foolproof.
I don't think the original post is FUD, he has some valid questions and observations. Anytime you have inexpensive consumer grade devices that are unlicensed and unidentified operating in a band with a primary licensed service with receivers that have no way to assert their usage of a frequency, you're going to have significant technical issues to address. Unfortunately this is what happens when you mix two very different services. | |
| | | | afiggatt
join:2007-07-12
Sterling, VA
| Re: No said by rf_engineer :That's the kicker, determining what frequency isn't in use. It can be difficult for a device to accurately predict what other receivers are actually receiving. There is another problem and that is the scarcity of unused UHF channels in the more crowded markets such as the mid-Atlantic region or LA. Has Google and the others taken a hard look at how many unused UHF channels they will be in some areas? Not many if you take the Service B contour and the reception range outside of that. Will these devices be allowed to use the Land Mobile band channels that are assigned to UHF 16 to 19 in some cities? WPVI-DT ABC 6 in Philadelphia will be on VHF 6 next February because of the lack of a suitable UHF channel they could use.
If their plan is to use the unused UHF channels, people may be in for reality check once they try to field these in some areas. If Google, Microsoft and the other backers wanted to provide for new open broadband communication systems, they should have petitioned Congress and the FCC to set aside several of the 6 MHz UHF channels that were up for auction as public white space bands. Of course, this would have reduced the funds raised from the auction, but Congress might have been persuaded that it was in the public interest (if enough lobbying money was put into it). | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by MrMoody :I still don't think it's possible to make these things so they don't interfere with distant broadcasts. 'doesn't matter. Distant TV broadcasts (i.e., signals received outside the Service Contour for the station in question) are entitled to no protection under FCC Rules. They can be interfered with by local full power stations, by local Class A and LPTV stations, by Part 74 BAS's, and by unlicensed devices (there are legal unlicensed devices operating in the UHF band now - remote controls. Not to mention a whole bunch of illegal ones: most wireless microphones).
As I've noted previously, there are already several hundread thousands of unlicensed devices operating in the TV sprectrum already, albeit illegally; namely, wireless microphones in use by those who do not qualify to obtain a license (which is most people). Yet the sky hasn't fallen, and people still get their TV just fine. Users tend to pick the channels where they aren't going to be interfered with by TV stations.
The NAB and the Society of Broadcast Engineers have complained a couple a times to the FCC about these illegal devices, but haven't been serious about because interference cases are few, and microphones aren't competing for eyeballs (unlike what Google has planned).
quote:
Let them find some other band to steal
Radio spectrum in the U.S.A. is owned by the American people, and managed by the FCC and NTIA. No one one would be "stealing" anything. | |
| | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Pay-TV companies should support Google! Once these white space devices successfully contaminate the television spectrum, people will be pushed to cable, satellite, or telco television services to be able to watch their TV shows... | |
| |
pissed
@direcpc.com | Re: Pay-TV companies should support Google! so they can do what the rest of us have been dping for years.you know the saying that you get what you pay for.well they are not paying for anything they can put up with a lot more than you think.if they dont like that then they can pay for their tv | |
| 
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ | I Signed Just to spite ol TK Junkman the anti everything person
--
My perception is REALITY | |
| |
Billme
@afsontario.com
| Re: I Signed I just signed too, but not to spite TK and the other "nay sayers".
History has proven that anytime anyone comes up with any idea, someone will come forward to say that it won't work. The trail of technology is riddled with the bones of "nay sayers".
I think the dispute began when all those that could profit realized that these spaces will inevitably be used for broadband.
I just happen to like the "Wireless Innovation Alliance" model better than anything else I've heard. | |
| | |
Billme
@lostinthenoise.net | Re: I Signed And before anyone says it does not affect you, you are in Canada.
I'm not in Canada, see.  | |
| ja2007123
join:2007-10-06 | Google... is just the guy who speaks for the team but doesn't do the hardwork plus gets all the attention.
That's why i hate google sometimes. | |
|
elijahblake
@ms.us
| I'm all For Google What about me and the other millions of people that live a few miles out of town and ATT has no plan to give me DSL... So i'm stuck with Wildblue for my slow speed internet. I hate Wildblue with a passion, it's been nothing but a nightmare from day one. I am currently throttled down to a speed so low that it just times out and want even let me get online. My download is at about 30% but they're saying i'm over my upload, which is a crock.. So yeah i'm all for alternative broadband and more importantly finally being able to get broadband in rural areas. | |
| |
country living
@charter.com
| Re: I'm all For Google I feel your pain as im also on satt. hughes net I am also fapped right now for reformatting a comp,but with hughes you are just fapped for 24 hrs instead of the monthly fap of wildblue.these greedy assholes just don't want no competition.these devices can be designed not to interfere with other equipment,but money talks it will prob. get shut down like the BPL did,maybe someday we will get real broadband for a reasonable price.I pay 80.00$ a month for 1.5 meg and 325meg daily limit that sux | |
| | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: hmm i like the last idea. i could see the 'white space' devices becoming a replacement to dial up, as in it: works pretty much everywhere, provides basic internet service for (hopefully) little to no cost. if you want more bandwidth (MB/s or MB alloted per account), you can always pay to get broadband from dsl, cable, or if you are luck, some sort of fiber. | |
| | probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
| said by uid1307457 : quote:
To the members of the Federal Communications Commission:
* Bring high-speed mobile internet access to every high school and middle school in the country.
Since high schools and middle schools are in a fixed location (they don't often move without warning), why do they need a wireless access to the internet? Wasn't the e-rate program (which we have all paid into) supposed to get every school, library, and hospital onto the information superhighway? | |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| A couple of arguments that need to be addressed... Illegitimate argument 1: All companies are greedy and,leap in logic, therefore all companies are equally dedicated to subverting the openness of the internet.
All companies want to make money, but some companies are making money in ways that are consonant with an open and neutral internet and some are making money in ways that drive them to be constantly at war with an open net.
Illegitimate argument 2: Companies, like google, that want an open internet should have to be in the isp and infrastructure business to make it happen.
Google isn't an isp and has never been interested in being an isp. This doesn't mean that they are leeching off anyone's network, any more than any other business that is not an isp but that uses the internet to facilitate business is a leech. Everyone but the incumbents benefit from an open internet, just as we all benefit from an open highway infrastructure that is available for use by everyone. There is no reason why a company that wants to transport product should have to build its own highway system or "shut its mouth", nor should all these companies be under any obligation to build out communications infrastructure. There are companies that are already in that business and there is no contradiction between wanting to maintain the openness of that infrastructure and not wanting to be in the infrastructure business oneself.
BTW google is putting money into clearwire and is supporting this white space push. It is too early to know how these things will progress or how much money google is willing to put into these developments. For all we know google might be prepared to put major money behind these things if they show promise. Right now it isn't lack of money that is hindering white space development. It is government. | |
| | probboy
join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA
| Re: A couple of arguments that need to be addressed... said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
For all we know google might be prepared to put major money behind these things if they show promise. Right now it isn't lack of money that is hindering white space development. It is government.
Google had the opportunity to put its money where its mouth is by bidding seriously on the 700 Mhz spectrum that was just auctioned off. That was dedicated spectrum that could have been used to provide internet access, and had much more promise than some phantom white-space device that can't even pass the current rudimentary FCC testing. | |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Battle of the Lobbyist Websites I've been browsing the WIA, NAB, and Google "Free the Airwaves" websites and I can't believe how sickeningly awful they are. They're full of half-truths, misinformation, scare tactics, fact omissions, arrogance, and FUD. Google's is probably the most respectable of the three as they don't go into nearly as much detail and therefore have less of an opportunity to mislead. The last point they make about wireless microphones being used for years in this spectrum being proof this would work is quite a leap. The number of wireless microphones in use, their bandwidth, and a few other characteristics make them very different from whitespace devices. I'm appalled Google would make such a technically flawed statement. I could spend all day ripping apart these three websites.
As lousy as these websites are, I'm not surprised if people are confused about whitespace. Shame on WIA, NAB, and Google. | |
| 
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | Would this work in translator served areas? Would this work OTA in areas like mine (Mendocino County, NW CA) that are served by translators? How about over cable or satellite? Tha translator here is still broadcasting in analog, and will continue to do so after the Febuary date (translators and low power tv stations aren't required to go digital by any certain date).
»www.tiaukiah.org/index.html Our local translator in the Ukiah area. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA | Re: Would this work in translator served areas? It can affect anything in the VHF or UHF TV bands. Cable isn't affected because it's a closed system that doesn't use the wireless spectrum over the air. Satellite is in a different frequency band than VHF or UHF TV and thus would be unaffected. | |
| | |
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA | Re: Would this work in translator served areas? Thanks RF! | |
| | | |
|
|
·