Google: We're One Step Closer to Super Wi-Fi

Status
Not open for further replies.

jerreece

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2006
400
0
18,930
3
So devices are "required" to have geo-location. In other words, they must be able to be located via the wireless connection. In other words, we can tell exactly where your TV, Smartphone, or other device is while you're using it.
 

Parsian

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
359
0
18,930
0
FRACK TV... its filled with BS anyways (well except for HD chicks/HD discovery/HD nature stuff...)

Internet is the way to go.
 

feeddagoat

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2010
149
0
18,630
0
TBH wouldn't mind loosing 50% of the channels on tv. Im not talking about +1 channels or channels I don't like, im talking about the ones that constantly repeat 3-4 shows only using 2 series at a time every day for a quarter of a year at least. CSI, NCIS, House, Law and order are shown on 3 different channels over here. Its at the point where channels are repeats of other channels.
 

zoemayne

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2009
208
0
18,830
0
obviously this wont effect TV... I dont know that details but this all sounds planned out. I think analog signals were wiped out to make way for this and other things. But I haven't looked at the details im just saying... I'll definitely drop my cable(which I dont watch) and internet bill for this free stuff.
 

sailfish

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2007
84
0
18,580
0
@JohnnyLucky, you'd be okay unless you were "unlucky" enough (which, you obvious aren't) to be wearing Google Goggles at the time.
 

twist3d1080

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2010
12
0
18,560
0
@all the commenter's mentioning their TV's.
This is for the air waves left vacant buy the TV signals being moved up to "digital" signals. Remember last year in June? This will not affect your TV at all? Learn to read the article, then comment.
 

caparc

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
55
0
18,580
0
These TV signals have great range and penetrate vegetation, buildings, etc. This would be VERY userful to me in my remote rural location as a substitute for my long range WIFI. There will be commercial versions of this, but will there be consumer versions and will they let us have decent range out in the country side?
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
207
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]connect the world, use the oceans as a giant antenna,[/citation]

The world's oceans would make a terrible antenna.
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
185
0
18,630
0
I don't think this is going to solve bandwidth problems for heavily-populated areas.
- First, areas such as NYC and SF have more OTA broadcast TV stations, so there are fewer frequency bands available for WiFi.
- Second, the number of users of those available frequency bands will be much higher (millions, instead of 10s or 100s of 1000s).
- Third, the frequency bands themselves just aren't that large. VHF Channels 2-6 occupy slots between 54 MHz and 88 MHz, with a segment of that used for RC toy signals*. So figure 6 MHz per VHF channel. UHF Channels 14-20 occupy 470-512 MHz*, so 6 MHz per UHF channel also. There are only channels up to 51 available in the US; all of the other channel bands have been auctioned off for other applications*. Ultimately, there are a maximum of 49 (2 to 51, excluding channel 37) 6 MHz channels available assuming zero broadcast stations in a given area.

How many bits can you actually send through a 6 MHz channel? If you send more than 6 mbps, you'll have more bits than you have waves in your carrier frequency. Somehow I don't think that's gonna work very well (though I welcome counterarguments from people who know more about radio waves). So imagine 50 teenage girls in Chicago with iPhones trying to simultaneously download the latest Justin Bieber video at 720p to their iTVs. All of the new bandwidth is used, and there are still, what, like 100,000 other teenage girls still trying to download the same video? OK, so maybe not ALL of them would ALL try to download at the same time, but you see my point. There's only so much information that can travel by radio waves in a given frequency band in a given physical space at a given time. If we want to send more information, we have to either increase the frequency band or segment the physical space. This solution is great for rural areas, but isn't going to do anything to help 80% of the US population*.

* Source: wikipedia ("VHF","UHF","Rural")
 

of the way

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2010
102
0
18,630
0
Unfortunately most of the tv stations around me are translator stations (rebroadcasts). They aren't required to be digital, and so they aren't. Aren't too many stations though, so there should still be some whitespace.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm confident that all the parties involved in making Super Wifi a reality have long since smoothed out the immediate wrinkles such as interfering with our current t.v. signals. Lol
That's just not an issue...
What IS an issue is I and many, many others, who live out in rural areas are forced to bend over and take it from Satellite companies and or local BS wifi broadband extortionist or settle for crap ass dial-up.
I only want to know WHEN it will happen. I'll even pay as much as I'm paying for Satelite right now, but if it's more than what I'm paying now...then I'm giving up all hope of a peaceful existence for a thick, bur and insect filled beard and a cave. Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Streaming Video & TVs 0
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 4
Adom Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
B Streaming Video & TVs 4
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
N Streaming Video & TVs 2
T Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
O Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
D Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY