36 thoughts on “Google Pushes White Space, Says Free The AirWaves”

  1. Great explanation of both pros and cons here. By the way, the site actually features the Google’s copyright sign that is more visible than the “supported by Google” text.

    As for the petition itself, I think that they will be sure to get a huge number of votes on it but unfortunately for Google a petition is only a petition and FCC will take lots of things into account, not only how efficient Google is in promoting the idea.

  2. Hey Om,

    Whitespaces are actually NOT in the 700MHz band. That spectrum was auctioned off. Whitespaces are the vacant channels that exist in a given area in channels 2-51. Channels 52-69 are the “700MHz band”.

    After the DTV transition, this is the spectrum TV will occupy:

    Ch 2-4: 54-72MHz
    Ch 5-6: 76-88MHz
    Ch 7-13: 174-216MHz
    Ch 14-51: 470-698MHz

    Whitespaces could exist in any of this spectrum, but there’s technical debate as to if any of the VHF spectrum (channels 2-13) would be of high enough quality.

  3. I find it fascinating how the term white space, implying wasted frequencies, is preferred over the term guard band even where the latter is (perhaps) still more applicable.

    I suppose technological advances will render most such interference limiting bands superfluous over time, but it is still an interesting choice of words.

  4. @ Bill Dollar…. Eating crow and putting my foot in my mouth. Sorry for that obvious goof up and correcting me on this one. Again proof that our readers are smarter than me.

  5. “I have long since stopped believing the “Google for good” mantra.”

    Why? Is it because they generate money? I really loathe the entitlement mentality of those that despise companies that produce and provide simply because they make a profit while doing so. Some people act as though profit is evil, and all money should go to those who “need” it, as though the “needy” are somehow incapable of being producers themselves. Everyone struggles, and those that succeed should be rewarded for their efforts, not robbed, or discredited, or dishonored by self righteous complainers who feel their good intentions entitle them to a share.

  6. Pingback: Libera el espectro
  7. Johnson,

    It’s not about “profit being evil”. It’s about monopoly being evil. Countless examples in history suggest a single entity with too much power is ultimately not ideal for the consumers/masses. Google is heading in that direction. We can continue believing “Google for good” or we can wake up and start putting the appropriate checks and balances in what is turning out to be another monopolistic system.

  8. Raj,

    I beg to differ. I don’t see how a free spectrum for Google could make it a “monopoly”. The internet is all about pull. The USERS pull the information they WANT and they use the services that work best for them. With an open spectrum and an open internet it allows other options open to the consumer forcing Google to make sure it maintains it’s level of service.

    Unless Google purchases all of the spectrum and somehow gains control of the entire internet (or neutrality fails) I can not see how Google could survive taking advantage of “the little guy”.

  9. I think this is going nowhere. By the time everyone in the US gets hooked up to WiMAX, if it happens, the rest of the world will have moved on to better long range broad band technology. I don’t think this is in the public interest – you get what you pay for, and google-powered ad driven internet isn’t going to be what you want your populace dependent on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.