March 24, 2008 10:26 AM PDT

Google outlines proposal for 'Wi-Fi on steroids'

Google on Monday said it has a plan to have American consumers from Manhattan to rural North Dakota surfing the Web on handheld gadgets at gigabits-per-second speeds by the 2009 holiday season.

The company, joined by other heavyweights like Microsoft and Dell, has long been lobbying for the Federal Communications Commission to free up unused broadcast TV channels known as "white spaces" for unlicensed use by personal devices. That portion of the TV band is highly prized because it can propagate long distances and through obstacles.

It also possesses the bandwidth to support vastly faster data rates than today's standard Internet service offerings--"Wi-Fi on steroids" or "Wi-Fi 2.0," as Richard Whitt, Google's telecommunications counsel, put it in a Monday morning conference call.

In a renewed effort to get the FCC on board with the idea, Google filed a six-page letter late on Friday that attempts to erase lingering concerns from TV broadcasters and microphone manufacturers about harmful interference caused by the entry of new devices.

"We're doing this because we want everybody to be satisfied with this process," Whitt said. "We think it's the right time to put these ideas in the record and see where they go."

Google isn't interested in becoming a wireless service provider or building a network of its own, Whitt said. It does, however, envision the white spaces as a "unique opportunity to provide ubiquitous wireless access for all Americans" and a prime spot for use of mobile handsets running its open-source Android platform. Google hopes to start rolling out Android devices, which are being developed in conjunction with a 34-company consortium, as soon as summer or fall of this year, Whitt said.

Even if the FCC signs off, the offerings wouldn't be immediate. The spectrum won't be ready for use until at least February 2009, when over-the-air broadcasters are required to vacate that band as part of the congressionally mandated shift to all-digital television.

The FCC also isn't expected to issue any rules for use of the spectrum for another several months, Whitt said. Agency engineers are still testing early-stage devices submitted by Microsoft and Phillips for interference issues.

Avoiding interference
In hopes of nudging that process in its favor, Google's new filing describes a multipronged approach aimed at avoiding interference. Building upon suggestions made in a filing by Motorola last fall, it said any new unlicensed TV white-spaces devices would be blocked from transmitting signals unless they had received a sort of "permission to transmit" message. Wireless microphones could also be outfitted with "inexpensive" beacons that would send out a signal to white-spaces devices that says " don't come here," by Whitt's description.

In addition, Google proposes setting up a "safe harbor," between channels 36 and 38, where unlicensed white-space devices would not be allowed to operate, but wireless microphones and other licensed devices would. It also urges the FCC not to discount the promise of "spectrum-sensing" technologies, which, for example, are supported by 802.11a-based Wi-Fi to protect military radars from interference.

Google also offered to provide no-cost "technical support" to third parties hoping to use the white spaces, should they be opened up.

Even if the regulators ultimately approve use of the white spaces, "no product will come to market unless the FCC can verify that the device does not interfere with TV or wireless microphone signals," Whitt said.

Representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Google's renewed white-spaces push comes just days after the FCC ended an auction of the remaining portion of the 700MHz broadcast TV spectrum that's being vacated for the digital switch next year. The company had been active in the event, lobbying beforehand for "open-access" conditions allowing consumers to attach whatever devices or run whatever applications they please.

The search giant had committed to bidding $4.6 billion for the "open-access" spectrum block, but last week, the FCC announced that it was Verizon Wireless, not Google, that had won those licenses.

Whitt said he couldn't say the proposal had nothing to do with the auction results, but because of FCC rules, he isn't able to comment further on Google's involvement in the auction until the end of next week.

Recent posts from News Blog
Virtual worlds for pre-schoolers? They're here
Facebook CTO to leave company
Nvidia CEO denies buyout of Via
Stolen Mac helps nab burglary suspects
Flaw turns Gmail into spamming machine
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 12 comments (Page 1 of 1)
Reality check
by dbargen March 24, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
Do you think current Cable/DSL provders are going to let this slide by and nom their profits away bite-by-byte? My gutt and logic meter are telling me that this could happen, especailly since the infrastructure for such an environment would must cheaper to maintain than curren fiber networks, but it's going to have to make someone a dime. We live in a capitalist republic, not a socialist commune. That being said, I also see this idea as being nowhere near secure enough for government agencies to trust with sensitive information. No, fiber will be around for a good long time before competing businesses and government agencies trust their data to wireless transmissions. If anyone is going to post in response, what effect do you think this would have on LANs?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
I'm tired of hearing people tell me their company's product is on steroids
by davidspark March 24, 2008 12:31 PM PDT
We HAVE to retire this hack cliche poor analogy of a souped up application or service. CNET, next time a company you're profiling tells you they have a product on "steroids" respond by saying, ?Oh, so your product has a lot of acne and shrunken testicles.? We have to put a moratorium on "______ on steroids." Who's with me? More about my rant here: http://www.sparkminute.com/?p=275
Reply to this comment View reply
Forget about the World Trade Center . . .
by fokwp March 24, 2008 2:29 PM PDT
. . . and the failure of their short-range radios that led to the breakdown of communication on 9/11. We need to let Google sell ads on the available bands so even the heartland gets its fair chance to browse porn on handheld devices.
Reply to this comment
I Don't Do Drugs
by jabailo March 24, 2008 3:52 PM PDT
Wi-Fi on steroids! Oh wow, I can hardly wait! Ooops...Hold On! I have Clearwire. It gives me Wi-Max speeds. And it's available for use anywhere with a mobile PCM card. Maybe Google should work on fixing its search engine and business model...
Reply to this comment View reply
Article misses WiMax/UMTS Rev. 8 comparisons
by libertyforall1776 March 24, 2008 5:47 PM PDT
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G
Reply to this comment
Be careful what you wish for
by LinearBob March 24, 2008 6:53 PM PDT
I keep the KTSF-TV26 and KTSF-DT27 transmitters on the air. So I have some idea about the impending transition to DTV broadcasting. The 8-VSB signal is fragile! Unlike the European COFDM digital television transmission system, ours is easily damaged by multipath and by "cross-modulation" effects. The latter are the problem here. The FCC's planning for DTV included several things. They were: 1) Mast mounted outdoor antennas located 30 feet above the ground for DTV reception. 2) Mast mounted pre-amplifiers to make up for the loss inherent in the transmission line between the antenna and the TV receiver. 3) The mast mounted antenna is rotatable to optimize reception int the presence of multipath. Do you live in a place where you can install such an antenna system? If so, you are very fortunate, because many people live in places where outdoor antennas of almost any kind EXCEPT for those 18 inch satellite antennas are banned. The ONLY reason those 18 inch antennas are legal is the federal government pre-empted the local zoning and deed covenants written into most areas of the country where Cable TV companies are. In case you aren't aware of it, this is the mechanism used by the Cable industry to force people into doing business with them. These deed covenants and zoning rules were instigated at the behest of the Cable industry, and at this moment, something like 75% of the people who watch broadcast television, actually see their local TV station through either a Cable TV system or through one of those 18 inch dishes. But not everyone has Cable or wants to pay anywhere from $1 to $4 per day FOREVER to a Cable TV company or to a satellite TV company. But what protects those people who try to receive DTV broadcast signals from what is called BFO (Brute Force Overload) interference? Here is a link to report by the engineering firm of Hammett and Edison regarding an interference situation that happened in the San Francisco Bay Area. http://www.h-e.com/pdfs/mm00-39sinc_ep.pdf I suggest that everyone read the Hammett and Edison comments to the FCC regarding DTV tuner performance. because this bears directly on whether or not the "white space" can be used without harming the reception of weak 8-VSB signals with a set top antenna in close proximity to a "white space" transmitter. When that transmitter is transmitting, what protects that nearby receive from Brute Force Overload? Why not look at using some of the "white space" in the 100 MHz wide 700 to 800 MHz band? It is possible to put a low pass filter at the input of the DTV tuner, to protect it from BFO, but signals within the TV bands cannot be easily filtered out to protect the 8-VSB signal that the TV viewer is trying to watch from damage. With NTSC, it was possible to view a television signal with all manner of interference present, in part because one could re-orient the receiving antenna to minimize the interference. With DTV, when a receiver is not "locked" there is no way to know where the interference is coming from nor can you see if you have reduced the interference until you suddenly see a picture. And just as suddenly, the picture that appeared can vanish again. So how does someone whose DTV reception is damaged by those unlicensed "white space" devices know where the interference is coming from? And how can that person mitigate the interference so they can watch their TV set without having their favorite program suddenly disappear?
Reply to this comment View reply
No Wireless... Please!
by UITD March 25, 2008 7:40 AM PDT
I do not do wireless. I dont trust wireless. You can NOT secure wireless - dont let anyone tell you about how great WEP is. For every people touting wireless security there are 3 enterprising teenagers who can and WILL crack it. Just sit in a Mc Donalds on a day when school is off and listen to them discuss how they do this. Sorry. My personal and financial AND MY CLIENTS' data, as well, is far too important to trust in the open air like that. I dont even like using a cell phone. I dont trust any security because, well, no one gives a crap - to be honest. They SAY they do but really people... open your eyes. When I see WIRED communications getting near-perfect security then I may reconsider. Until then, it doesnt bother me one bit that I need to walk over to a computer instead of needing instant access wherever I am. There's just no need for it.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
On TechRepublic: Top 5 operating systems you never used
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: