Google: White Space Broadband InevitableGoogle co-founder '100 percent confident' it's coming ( old news - 02:28PM Friday May 23 2008) tags: competition · wireless · 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). However, tests at the FCC haven't gone well, with an initial round of testing showing the device couldn't cleanly avoid nearby signals, and a second round suffering from power problems. That isn't stopping Google co-founder Larry Page from sharing his vision of "Wi-Fi on steroids" as part of a discussion this week at the New America Foundation (see video). The Google blog suggests Page believes it's inevitable: He said he is "100 percent confident" that the white spaces will be used for Internet access -- it's just a question of when. And when that happens, many different companies will likely invest millions of dollars to develop innovative devices that don't interfere. But the FCC allowing this innovation to happen is a necessary first step. The hardware working in tests would help. The National Association of Broadcasters have tried to argue that white space broadband is akin to interference armageddon (check out their new website), but I think they're equally afraid of a new competitor in the broadcast space. Meanwhile, the wireless phone industry, equally afraid of competition, would prefer this spectrum is licensed and auctioned off (because they know they'd win). Google, Dell and Microsoft aren't exactly tiny, but when you consider the collective political muscle of their opponents on this front (broadcasters, cable companies, AT&T, Verizon and even the NFL) they might be out-gunned. Related:- Will Google Bid To Lose In Wireless Auction?
- Analyst Predicts Google Will Bid to Lose at Auction
- Google, You're a Wireless Tease
- Google Realizes Their 700Mhz 'Win' Wasn't Much of One
- Android May Launch Application Store to Compete with iPhone
- FCC Proceeds Cautiously With White Space Testing
- Google Launches White Space Broadband Website
- Google: White Space Tests Were 'Rigged'
|
  mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Speaking of ads... The National Association of [Bro]Adcasters...
Are there any shows left on TV, especially OTA stations, that don't exist solely for the purpose of having a place to put commercials? (I don't think so.) | |
|  |   DataDoc My avatar looks like me. If I was 2D. Premium join:2000-05-14 Greenville, NC | Re: Speaking of ads... That's what they've always been for, the entertainment value is only to attract you long enough to watch the ads.
It's a business, not a charity. | |
|  |  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Re: Speaking of ads... No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. Cable shows used to not have commercials at all. There were more and better quality shows back when there were only 3 networks than there are now. Now? "reality" shows (that couldn't be more un-real), 'American Idol' ...it's an endless list.
Business? ...you get what you pay for. But, you hit the nail on the head: flashing lights and lousy music to "attract" viewers with short attention spans and/or too tired from the work-day to care.
By and large, TV sucks. | |
|  |  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: Speaking of ads... said by mod_wastrel :No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. They only cared about quailty because without it people wouldn't watch. Since 1948 TV has ALWAYS been about making money. Shows were ways to get people to notice whatever product a sponsor was pitching. | |
|  |  |  |  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Re: Speaking of ads... The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Tzale Proud Libertarian Conservative Premium join:2004-01-06 upstate NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: Speaking of ads... said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television. -- Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL & MURRAY SABRIN (NJ GOP FRONT RUNNER for SENATE) 2008
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| Re: Speaking of ads... said by Tzale :said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television. Remember reality shows only get 50% of the audiance but they are 80% cheaper, a net profit.
All reality shows are un-unionized, and they cost as little as $20K an episode, compared to $1 million an episode for other shows. Not to mention hiring interns and unqualified ppl to script reality shows, and the form letter nature of them. The only thing cheaper to show on TV would be the "Ass the Movie" from Idiocracy. | |
|  |  EPS
join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA
| What about PBS? They do have sponsors, but it's a different model than the broadcast networks.
Of course, I've noticed that WGBH spends long time-blocks essentially advertising why it's great to donate to them, which isn't too different from an infomercial I guess. | |
|  |  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| Re: Speaking of ads... PBS didn't come to my area till around 1964-65. Within 10 years, of the 4 local broadcast network affiliates (NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS) the PBS affiliate was the "richest" of them all as far as assets were concerned, especially "liquid" assets, as in money in the bank. Needless to say they were very successful with their "please give us money" campaigns, but they did deliver good stuff--Monty Python and the like.
That was then; this is now. TV used to be what the family gathered around in the evening--it was the catalyst. Now, it's something else. Love it or hate it, it is what it is. | |
|  |   Tzale Proud Libertarian Conservative Premium join:2004-01-06 upstate NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by mod_wastrel :The National Association of [Bro]Adcasters... Are there any shows left on TV, especially OTA stations, that don't exist solely for the purpose of having a place to put commercials? (I don't think so.) It is a business... Not a source of free entertainment. Something has to pay the bills. Don't like it? Start making your own sitcoms and put them on YouTube... See how long you're able to sustain yourself. -- Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL & MURRAY SABRIN (NJ GOP FRONT RUNNER for SENATE) 2008
| |
|  |  |   mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Re: Speaking of ads... Who needs sitcoms when we've got BBR?  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| Re: Speaking of ads... said by Tzale :said by mod_wastrel :Who needs sitcoms when we've got BBR? Exactly. This site is much more interesting than any reality TV show or sitcom that the big three could produce. And why anyone with a brain is leaving the tv watching population pool, making reality shows have even higher ratings justifying their existence. | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| shacks of burning shit like American Idol and Survivor are on because they bring lots of eyeballs and as such bring lots of ad dollars. however the sheer volume of advertising is why HBO(and similar channels) gained so many subs over the years because they can not only run commercial free but they can do things that the networks cant thanks to the FCC. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|   ur12
@server4you.de
| White Space Broadband Inevitable I'm glad somebody thinks it is inevitable that the white spaces will be used for broadband expansion. But if the "old grumpy" TV execs have their way it will never happen.
I guess it *will* be what it will be.  | |
|  |  cornelius785
join:2006-10-26 Worcester, MA | Re: White Space Broadband Inevitable i also agree on the 'inevitability' of using whitespace. the spectrum is a precious, finite resource that should be used to its full potential. | |
|  EPS
join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA
| Interference I don't understand why this site keeps bringing up an argument that the broadcasters only want to stifle the internet... 99% of their viewers can already get the internet anyway, and if we accept that this will be used for "rural broadband" (which is unlikely in my opinion) many rural areas can't get TV signals, either. (Except maybe on the lower VHF bands, many of which are being phased out and will be gone for TV in 2009) Plus, most of the broadcast networks have substantial websites where at least some of that content is publicly available online.
I do think there are legitimate interference concerns here- this is increased by the fact that DTV is "all or nothing", in that if the adjacent channel is interfered with past a certain level it produces not a fuzzy signal but nothing at all. Also, the UHF television frequency band is getting more crowded as VHF-low stations must move their signals there. | |
|  ja2007123
join:2007-10-06 | What's Google doing? just making money pulling ads on this things. This irritates me arghhh. | |
|  |   brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07 Brooklyn, NY | Re: What's Google doing? There taking out analog tv to make room for white space tv. | |
|  | |  |
|
|