Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa 98
1sockchuck writes "Google is seeking permission to place satellite antennas on land near its data center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The 4.5 meter antennas could be used to receive content feeds from broadcast networks that could be bundled with a high-speed fiber service. The FCC filings were made by Google Fiber, which is currently laying fiber for a high-speed network in Kansas City that will provide Internet connectivity 'at speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have today.'"
Re:Why would they need permission? (Score:5, Informative)
I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?
Legal protection from interference. Example:
http://www.comsearch.com/industry_solutions/interference_protection/c-band_es.jsp [comsearch.com]
Pretty much first come first served.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
First of all, these are 15 feet across. That's huge. They also generate passive effects. The dish itself is a parabloic reflector, and for a unit of this size, can have unintended consequences on equipment located nearby. I don't understand quite how it all works, but the FCC requires permits for antennas above a certain db gain, and these would definately qualify for that.
Mod parent down (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, these are 15 feet across. That's huge. They also generate passive effects. The dish itself is a parabloic (sic) reflector, and for a unit of this size, can have unintended consequences on equipment located nearby. I don't understand quite how it all works, but the FCC requires permits for antennas above a certain db gain, and these would definately (sic) qualify for that.
It's a receive-only dish. Those don't emit RF. As reflectors, dishes have less effect than a flat surface, other than near their focus. (The focus is close to the dish, and that's where the receiving antenna and low-noise amplifier are mounted.)
Re: (Score:2)
Fifteen feet doesn't sound that big to me -- when I was in high school in the 80s, my dad sold and installed Satellite dishes -- some many might recall these ugly monstrosities that were 8, 10, even 12 feet across. ... Indeed, you can still buy the same brand he preferred (paraclipse): http://www.orbitcommunications.com/Cyberstore/Cband/dishes.htm [orbitcommunications.com]
A 16' dish will cost you $5949.95
Re:Why would they need permission? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand quite how it all works, but the FCC requires permits for antennas above a certain db gain, and these would definately qualify for that.
No, they do not. I've been involved in RF engineering, in some tangential manner or another, for a quarter century and I've never heard of a FCC antenna permit. I have been involved in FAA work for towers, which is regulated and permitted more than licensed and the FAA isn't the FCC anyway. I have thankfully avoided getting involved with the EPA especially WRT wetland management where some antennas are installed, but the EPA is not the FCC. I have been involved in transmitter licensing, admittedly transmitters are attached to antennas and the FCC is all excited about V/M ERP levels and such but they are licensing a complete system of transmitter, grounding system and antenna, not just an antenna. I have been involved in microwave links where below a certain ERP you are unlicensed and to run above a certain ERP you need licensing (another obvious example is FM broadcast radio transmitter, wanna run 1 milliwatt from your ipod to car radio, fine, but you wanna run 100 watts community radio station you need a license), again this is system licensing not antenna licensing. There is a weird corner case in the family radio service FRS where the antenna must be permanently attached to the transmitter and is type accepted as a complete inseparable unit, but its type accepted not licensed. God only knows local building inspectors LOVE to do all kinds of civil engineering and general permitting foolishness to put an antenna on a tower or whatever, but they are not the FCC. Local oscillator leakage makes any non-TRF receiver essentially a very weak transmitter. So if your LO leakage is at -50 dBmW and you attach a 50 dB radio astronomy antenna to it, you MAY be in violation of the FCC unintentional radiator regulations, but thats not a license thats an emission regulation and that is fixed by repairing your equipment up to standard, not getting a license to interfere. You can do anything the FAA, building codes, zoning, and your bank account will allow you to do WRT to ham radio antennas. There might be some really amazingly obscure corner of RF work where an antenna is licensed that I've somehow avoided, but I find it Highly Unlikely. Please let me / us know if you find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulated would probably have been a better choice of words than licensed. Whatever. I didn't mod myself up. The point being, that a 15' parabolic dish does have passive effects (I've seen a 18 inch dish cause undesired intereference to a WiFi hotspot a few feet away), and apparently it is signifigant enough that the FCC requires public notice.
Re:Why would they need permission? (Score:4, Informative)
signifigant enough that the FCC requires public notice.
Dude I'm telling you, they don't. I've worked at least at three places in telecom with big (heck, giant) ugly recieve (and at one place, transmit!) dishes in engineering and there is no such thing as a FCC requirement or license for the installation, ownership, or use of a dish. Current job has a small farm of dishes I'm not directly involved with in C band and Ku band, coincidentally, but I previously worked for a big microwave digital service, etc. 3 t-3 might not sound like much bandwidth, but out in the boonies, thats like one meg per human being so its not so bad... In an area with more cows than people, old fashioned microwave radio is still better than fiber.
This "dish filing" is because C-band is a dual purpose allocation and the FCC will protect a registered primary user... assuming they've actually registered. Best example outside this service I can come up that might help clarify it is the ham radio 70 cm band has the hams as a secondary service and .mil as primary and if .mil registers a radar or whatever the heck they're doing, then within a certain geographic area the hams get the boot and/or have ridiculous low ERP limitations along with a legal obligation as secondary users to not interfere with the primary users. That's not an issue where I live so there are weaksignal and EME guys with stacked long beam yagis and hundreds of watts, but I know there are places along the flyover coasts where the .mil limits hams to something too small to make even a weak little FM repeater. The 5 MHz ham band channelized ops have the same relationship, secondary allocation means you must stay out of the way of the primary users. GOOG is just registering themselves as a primary user, you secondary folks best stay away.
Air to ground satellite is a primary service in that band and some pt-pt is secondary if and only if there exist no registered cband ground receivers that could be interfered with. All this means is they've declared their willingness to exert their rights as a primary user, rather than waiting until a secondary builds out a network and THEN takes the secondary to court (and wins, because they're legally primary). It just saves everyone a lot of lawyer time and trouble.
Would sprint or whoever be allowed to build a c-band ground-ground pt-pt on the frequencies we use at work within a short distance of our dishes? heck no, we're primary users and we're registered so that ain't happening. They could get (in fact, do have) a secondary allocation that wouldn't interfere with our primary allocated work.
If you don't register, then you can fight it out in court later with a secondary, but its really frowned upon.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC form 312 "Registration of a New Earth Station" can be filled out for receive-only stations. I'm not 100% sure you are legally required to do that.
From my post "Air to ground satellite is a primary service in that band and some pt-pt is secondary if and only if there exist no registered cband ground receivers that could be interfered with. All this means is they've declared their willingness to exert their rights as a primary user"
As a primary allocation user, you are free to roll over and play dead and let the secondary allocation users transmit all over you making your equipment unusable. Maybe you're not using it anymore, maybe the secondary users
Re: (Score:2)
The point being, that a 15' parabolic dish does have passive effects
If that's true, then why isn't the FCC regulating construction of buildings, vehicles, and anything else that can interfere passively with a radio signal?
Re:Why would they need permission? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you nuts, in addition to being uninformed? 15 feet across is *not* a large antenna. And this is a receive-only antenna. You are right, you "don't understand quite how it all works."
This is not news. This is Google seeking a zoning variance. The land is probably zoned agricultural. Iowa zoning authorities have been paying attention to all kinds of tower and antenna placements because of the power generating windmills that are going in. I suspect the "permission" they are seeking is a zoning variance that is no more different that me asking to put a second story on my house, which in my neighborhood requires a zoning variance. *yawn*
Re: (Score:2)
the FCC requires permits for antennas above a certain db gain, and these would definately qualify for that.
Just to make sure, you realize that "db gain" only has to do with directionality? It's the same word, but it has nothing to do with the gain of an amplifier (which just so happens might be behind the antenna, but has nothing to do with the gain of the antenna itself).
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you only need the permits for antennas capable of practical transmission. Though, the ones we are talking about could be - it's probably just a matter of swapping out the feed horn.
Re: (Score:3)
If you follow the links, the FCC said Google Fiber didn't need permission for the Ku band receivers. They amended [fcc.gov] their filing to reflect that (and to add specific satellites for the Ku-extended band; apparently you not only need an FCC license for the receiving antenna, but for which satellites you point at. Both of which are kind of ridiculous. I wonder if the FCC would have any jurisdiction if you just built an enormous dish
Re: (Score:1)
Be sure to use the government mandated ROT13 encryption to comply with all applicable regulations.
Redundant? (Score:4, Funny)
"Google is seeking permission to place satellite antennas on land"
Not to be confused with the antennas they plan to put on water, trees and birds.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this has been rated Troll by the slashdot gods, but I just have to say how COOL bird-based satellite antennas would be. All that needs to be done is to figure out the mini-motor system to keep them pointed in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this has been rated Troll by the slashdot gods, but I just have to say how COOL bird-based satellite antennas would be. All that needs to be done is to figure out the mini-motor system to keep them pointed in the right direction.
This would certainly give RFC 2549 [ietf.org] a boost.
Pigeon net - could work well in crowded city environments.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is Iowa. Not much in the way of international waters in Iowa.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the headline also suggests silver waves of growing antennas across the prairie, until somebody comes by with a combine harvester.
Re: (Score:2)
their original request to put satellite antennas on people was rejected...
Southpark (Score:1)
their original request to put satellite antennas on people was rejected...
I guess too many were traumatised [southparkstudios.com] by Cartman's satellite dish to ever make this viable option.
Well, at least... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, at least someone from Kansas City was here on slashdot to confirm your rant.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in Iowa we know how to spell "you're."
Re: (Score:1)
When I read things like this, it makes me
Re: (Score:3)
Just substitute in "humans" for progressives and conservatives.
Regardless of evolved or created, humans love nothing better than talking trash about "those" people.
Re: (Score:2)
-Fock you.
(p-chem joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
The nick comes from an animal character in an online rpg (a muck). Hartree Fox. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, they were making the same joke I did. (you may know, but for others benefit...)
Hartree-Fock [wikipedia.org] is a technique for computing the electronic structure of atoms and molecules.
Re: (Score:2)
My background is physics and I work on a chemistry department at a university. It was a muck character I have, so I'm the one to blame for it. (Tomatoes and other missiles happily dodged. ;) Like you said, I came up with the name as a truly horrible pun that only a few would get.
Even had a suitably altered write up about the "Hartree Fox" method attached to the character description.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that progressives are way to concerned with moving.
There is no set destination or even a map showing how to get to the pace that does not exist.
Yet we must keep moving forward. Toward something that we should not look at.
The fact that moving is creating a worse education environment for our children and larger government debt for them to deal with has nothing to do with the direction we are moving in. It is always the fault of not moving fast enough in the chosen direction.
Sometimes I just get tired
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason that educated people trend liberal.
I'm reminded here that credentials are a lot easier to get than intelligence and wisdom.
Re:kansas? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a progressive point of view, I think it makes perfect sense. The more access to the "real world" these people have, the harder it will be for the echo chamber to hold them.
How long can they remain "backward" if they are able to see the goings-on of the world around them? The fundamentalist mindset you're complaining about requires an echo chamber. This is why cults always cut themselves off from the outside world. The outside world provides too much evidence that the crap they're being fed by their chosen David Koresh or Jim Jones is just that, crap.
I honestly think that getting high-technology out into the country would be a progressive's wet dream. The rural parts of the country are so staunchly conservative in part because of their isolation. I suppose one could argue the opposite, as well, that people in urban areas are more progressive because they're forced to live in close quarters and thus have no choice but be more tolerant of those different from them, whether in looks, opinions, religion, etc.
When I was in high school, there was a Catholic grade school that fed into our public school. It was funny watching those kids, in just a few months, go fucking crazy with the freedom to act and dress that they never had before. Ditto with the kids coming in to our "city" school from out on the farms.
Re: (Score:2)
From a progressive point of view, I think it makes perfect sense. The more access to the "real world" these people have, the harder it will be for the echo chamber to hold them.
How long can they remain "backward" if they are able to see the goings-on of the world around them? The fundamentalist mindset you're complaining about requires an echo chamber. This is why cults always cut themselves off from the outside world. The outside world provides too much evidence that the crap they're being fed by their chosen David Koresh or Jim Jones is just that, crap.
I honestly think that getting high-technology out into the country would be a progressive's wet dream. The rural parts of the country are so staunchly conservative in part because of their isolation. I suppose one could argue the opposite, as well, that people in urban areas are more progressive because they're forced to live in close quarters and thus have no choice but be more tolerant of those different from them, whether in looks, opinions, religion, etc.
When I was in high school, there was a Catholic grade school that fed into our public school. It was funny watching those kids, in just a few months, go fucking crazy with the freedom to act and dress that they never had before. Ditto with the kids coming in to our "city" school from out on the farms.
This Link [fbcdn.net] says it all.
Re: (Score:1)
I honestly think that getting high-technology out into the country would be a progressive's wet dream. The rural parts of the country are so staunchly conservative in part because of their isolation. I suppose one could argue the opposite, as well, that people in urban areas are more progressive because they're forced to live in close quarters and thus have no choice but be more tolerant of those different from them, whether in looks, opinions, religion, etc.
Or become less tolerant. My take is that people who actually commit crimes based on bigotry tend to be more urban. And institutionalized "reverse" racism (such as advocating reparations for historical incidents of racism) tends to be an urban belief.
I see the rural/urban thing as one of the great divisions in modern human society. And IMHO the increased urbanization of the entire world has profound effects, not all positive. Historically, this seems similar to much of China's and Europe's histories.
Re: (Score:2)
I would just point out for the record that Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO are not rural. While it is true that rural Kansas schools are facing serious problems as a result of depopulation, nobody is lining up to send their children to school in KCK or KCMO.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're one of those "The earth is 6,000 years old, Jesus rode a dinosaur to school, and Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexuality" conservatives (working for NASA I highly fucking doubt it, but I admit I could be wrong there) you're not the type of conservative I'm speaking about.
I figured that was clear by my use of the term "fundamentalist mindset". Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods, but we don't consider typical conservatives "fundamentalists" around here. That'
Re: (Score:3)
I don't quite live 'out in the country' but yes, a majority of people around here are of the conservative mindset. And those that aren't typically don't speak up about it. It is interesting to see the progressive/conservative split divided among urban and rural.
So we're in agreement, then? The majority of people are of the conservative mindset in your "not quite" rural area, and the majority of the people I've ever come across when visiting rural-living family are of the conservative mindset, so it seems like your anecdotes agree with what I said concerning rural areas being more conservative.
And what the hell are you talking about, "vitriol"? Besides the fact that I don't see what you could really call vitriolic in my post, I was talking about fundamentalists.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a Kansas resident I am offended. Yes, our nut bags are better at catching press than your's but that doesn't make any other places nut bags less crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, if there's one thing this country really needs; its higher speed internet for the fundies in kansas.
What this country really needs is people whose world-view isn't completely a creation of the corporate news media.
Paying attention to what's important: (Score:2)
Indeed. Certainly wouldn't want to give those Kansans any distraction from growing food for your portly cube dwelling butt.
Re: (Score:3)
Kansas: 100 guys to keep ADM's robotic tractors running to feed us, 2.8 million to keep the meth labs running.
Seriously, you guys should have just stopped after "Dust In The Wind."
Re: (Score:3)
"2.8 million to keep the meth labs running."
You mean us rural types have to make that for you too?
You guys should really google "one pot method" and invest in some plastic 2 liter bottles... ;)
Re: (Score:3)
This conversation about meth production should somehow link to that story about truckers hauling nuclear loads.
Re: (Score:2)
"This conversation about meth production should somehow link to that story about truckers hauling nuclear loads."
Dunno about radiologic hazards, but there's gotta be some mean biochemistry going on when after sitting in those cabs for hours, meth addled truckers start dropping nuclear loads at the truck stop.
I don't want to be any closer than the next county.
Re: (Score:2)
Dropping nuclear loads at the truck stop? I see you've seen the bathrooms at TAs as well.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not entirely sure this deserves a response, but you might want to double check your assumptions about the demographics of Kansas City, KS. I admit this is an assumption on my part, but you might be surprised to know that Kansas City is largely in Missouri. KCK is by comparison very small, but I admit for this topic either might technically be correct since Google has deemed it fit to fiber them both up.
Re: (Score:2)
Thety readsmy thoughits and it punches! But the DEVIL will see your card!!!! And he is late.
Wow. An encrypted Slashdot post. I wonder what it means.
Why Kansas? (Score:1)
All they will use that bandwidth for is farm porn and wrestling.
Re: (Score:2)
Google seems to spread itself too thin. The last service that I can remember them doing well was Gmail. With their Google+ integration into search, it seems like I am getting a lower quality experience as more spam regularly floods the results and I have to select "Hide personal results" every time, yet I do not even have a Google+ account.
Google Wave is a great example. It could have been great, but they reused the system for unique addressing as email, yet they provided absolutely no way to transition (co
Internationally (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be cool if Google had farms like this all over the world. Then they could stream the content on YouTube. We could watch euro soccer matches for example.
Or unfiltered news from the middle east, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
But are they organic? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will these Antennae be grown organically and do they produce waste that could be used for bio-fuel?
They may be organic, but I find the conditions unacceptable since they're not free-range.
Net neutrality issues? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly I'm just being naive, but to me that seems like it's still a good thing. If a company is willing to shell out the money to improve the network then it seems fair that their stuff will get a boost. It's only when the ISPs are deliberately slowing down their competitors, or the people who haven't paid the right kickbacks that net neutrality starts to become more important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. One day you'll only be able to get to Google if you're on the Google network. It's a bit of a hard case, as the entrenched ISPs don't seem too interested in upgrading their networks, but we want them to stay open...
Patent? (Score:2)
Agricultural Question: (Score:1)
"Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa"
I wonder what kind of fertilizer they plan to use?
Re: (Score:1)
"Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa"
I wonder what kind of fertilizer they plan to use?
Shame Dung.
Googles Video Super head ends (Score:1)
Google does not need to build this next to the data center for distribution of live stream content. It can be rented in very fast order from L3 with multiple farms or be put on multiple network carriers with what is now a low end DIA at 100mbit/sec.
Super head ends are all satellite Feed de-encryption and IPv4 multicast c
Re: (Score:2)
Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that Google might have researched this a bit. Verizon didn't seem to have too much of a problem with having a SHE in Normal, IL which is part of the tornado alley.
I also have a feeling that Google wanted something that didn't rely on anyone else to provide them with their video feed. While it potentially could be cost effective, there is also a non-zero chance of transmission disputes, contract negotiation outages, etc. Having your own infrastructure start to finish el
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't do things the cheapest way because they're thinking long-term. They want to have everything in house. They may (accidentally, I'm sure) destroy some of the companies you mentioned, so Google doesn't want to be their customer when that day comes. Google also thinks (rightly or wrongly) that at scale they can always design something cheaper than anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Google by building a farm in tornado central and hiring engineers their is showing either ignorance of modern cable super head ends to take content feeds from the content providers.
I grew up in Omaha, right across the river from Council Bluffs, IA. Other than a small tornado hitting randomly to the west of Omaha, there isn't much risk to putting the antenna farms right next to their facilities. Tornadoes aren't really that much to be worried about, compared to hurricanes and earthquakes. As long as these things are sufficiently anchored down (and assuming the data center is similarly protected) there isn't much risk to them being damaged. The overall environment, however (assu
Hey Gooogle!!!! (Score:2)
Bring some of that 100 x's speed to Seaside Park in Bridgeport
Google HAARP! (Score:2)
Oblig (Score:2)