Google's Page pitches for white spaces in DC

Google's Page pitches for white spaces in DC

Summary: Google's Larry Page is in Washington, talking up white spaces to Congress – and speaking out against lobbyists, as well. Page met with key lawmakers including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Google
8

Google's Larry Page is in Washington, talking up white spaces to Congress – and speaking out against lobbyists, as well. Page met with key lawmakers including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and policy makers at the Federal Communications Commission, the Post reports.

"There's a huge opportunity to make this stuff work," Page said in a discussion this morning hosted by the New American Foundation.
Use of white spaces would create a ubiquitous Wi-Fi-like environment, where Internet access is always freely available.
"For us, that translates into more revenues for us. If you have 10 percent more connectivity in the U.S. that's 10 percent more revenue for us and that's a big number. The more available broadband is and the lower the cost, we make more money," Page said.
Specifically, Page wants the winners of the 700 MHz auction to be able to auction off the white spaces between usable frequencies, reports PCWorld.
That idea could be expanded to the federal government, with agencies that sell spectrum on a temporary basis potentially raising billions of dollars, Page said during a speech at the New America Foundation, an independent think tank.

If government agencies could conduct real-time auctions on their spectrum, the unused spectrum "doesn't stay wasted," said Page, now Google's president of products. "It's unclear how much demand you'd have. I think you'll have a lot of demand as you free up more spectrum."

Policymakers should make policy based on public need not on the self-interested lobbying of entrenched industries, he said, according to Dow Jones.

"Part of why I'm here is I just I don't want people to be misled by people who have an interest in this to cause the country to do the wrong thing," Page said. "Should you really be listening to the NAB which wants to keep the spectrum for its own use?"

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

8 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Grand Jury?

    Google is doing something wrong?
    BALTHOR
  • huh?

    what ya talking about?
    rkoman@...
  • Just another hypocrite/lobbyist

    [i]For us, that translates into more revenues for us. If you have 10 percent more connectivity in the U.S. that???s 10 percent more revenue for us and that???s a big number. The more available broadband is and the lower the cost, we make more money,??? Page said[/i]

    [i]Part of why I???m here is I just I don???t want people to be misled by people who have an interest in this to cause the country to do the wrong thing,??? Page said. ???Should you really be listening to the NAB which wants to keep the spectrum for its own use????[/i]

    Translation:
    "Should we (Google) have to give some other company our money to use that space to generate ad revenue for our company, when it would be so much better for the government to open up and maintain (at the the tax payer's expense) that space for us, so that we can generate ad revenue for ourselves without spending any of our own money?

    [i][b]Policymakers should make policy based on public need not on the self-interested lobbying of entrenched industries[/b][/i]

    Like Google?
    GuidingLight
    • It made me chuckle.

      A better headline would read:

      Google lobbies congress to stop lobbying. Except for Google.
      frgough
    • Spot On. Do no evil?

      Ok, maybe a little evil...
      No_Ax_to_Grind
  • RE: Google's Page pitches for white spaces in DC

    This may be slightly off topic, but it definitely goes after the FCC. I feel that the FCC really screwed up big time when it came to DTV. There was an opportunity to get rid of a few long lingering problems; and they did not do it. First, of all, lets deal with Google.

    1) IM distortion for digital broadcasts.
    I have, up until recently, thought the NAB's whining about white spaces was nothing but noise from an entrenched monopoly (read: broadcasters) that did not want to give up any turf. However, about 5 weeks ago, I read about interference issues that plague digital broadcasts. One scenario dealt with "triplet" stations, DTV stations spaced 3 channels apart. Example: stations in the same area on channels 30, 33 and 36. This report states that interference can occur on channels 24, 27, 39 and 42, although at a reduced level. This interference can happen on any "triplet" combination; not just 30, 33 and 36. The end result is an increase in background noise. Many, might say, "Well, we don't have a "triplet" in our area. And, while that may be true, the interference is measured at the TV set (receiver). If a "white space" device is operating nearby, on a "triplet channel" the area around that "white space transmitter" can be subject to interference. I am not so sure I would like it if my neighbors "white space" device screwed up my TV reception. Remember, when analog signals get weak, there is a lot of snow. When digital signals get weak, either you get a ton of pixelation, or nothing.

    2) Better use of VHF TV channels.
    From what I have seen, the lower VHF channels (2-6 in the US) are essentially worthless for DTV; even high VHF stations (7-13) can experience reception problems. Experience has shown the the UHF channels (14-52) are better for DTV.

    Even our local PBS station (on channel 3) is moving up into the upper VHF band (at channel 13).

    Ever since FM was moved into the 88-108 MHZ band decades ago, stations at the beginning of the dial (like 88.1, 88.3, 88.5, 88.7, etc) located in an area close to a channel 6 TV station had to protect the TV station.

    Why didn't the FCC just clear channels 2-6 completely? Unlike, the commercial part (92-108) of FM, which has stations allocated by specific areas; the non-commercial portion (88-92) is truly a shoehorn situation in many urban areas.

    Most FM receivers can pick up the audio portion of channel 6 (many will pick up 87.7, some can go even down to 87.1) Here the FCC could have cleared out two problems. They could have even opened up a sliver of bandwidth to take some of the strain of the non-commercial stations. And they could have done away with the channel 6 issues. But they did not.

    3) Low power TV and translator stations
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that these stations convert over to digital only after the Feb 2009 date. Many will continue their analog signals beyond that date. How would you know if a station you watch is one of these, one way is if the station identifies itself as 'WXYZ-CA' or 'WXYZ-LP', (sorry, I do not intend to slight the owners of the real WXYZ in Detroit, just using it as an example) The other way is if the station identifies itself as 'W69ZZ' that identifies a translator; a translator simply receives one station, and rebroadcasts on a different channel. Since we are dealing with low power stations (and smaller coverage areas), why couldn't the FCC have a plan to move them to the upper VHF channels (7-13)?

    Personally, I would like to see Google break the stranglehold of the telco and cableco monopolies. It would be nice to see their walled gardens in ruin. A third option for consumers will make the monopolies sweat. But, do I think Google is going to get anywhere? Not while this administration is in office!
    fatman65535
  • Clue for him, if he is talking to Congress then he is a lobbyist.

    Duh!!!

    Don't listen to "those" lobbyist, listen to "this" lobbyist.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
  • RE: Google's Page pitches for white spaces in DC

    Google will take over cell phone and mobile advertising rights eventually on a majorioty. Free wifi is coming soon. Get Your websites built out. Stop hating against Google keeping up our economy in a recession.

    Michael Rotkin
    www.seochampion.com
    mrotkin