• Latest News

    25 Nov 2014

    Scientists urge governments to turn old TV frequencies into free “super WiFi”

    Governments should sack plans to auction off old television frequencies to the highest bidder and instead use the bandwidth for free super-frequency WiFi if they want to boost the economy, scientists have said.
    Old television frequencies are becoming available for other uses around the world, thanks to a switch from analogue to digital transmission.
    However, while governments are for the most part auctioning these off to whoever is prepared to pay the most – usually mobile phone networks – they should instead be using the frequencies to create free-to-use, wide-range WiFi, scientists from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany have said.
    This new “super WiFi” would have a far wider range than existing WiFi networks, which are mostly transmitted over wireless local area networks (WLAN) at frequencies of 2GHz or above. 
    WiFi transmitted over old TV frequencies could be transmitted at lower frequencies than traditional WiFi, resulting in a far wider area covered. This super WiFi’s coverage area could even be as big as several kilometres in radius, a massive improvement on existing networks.
    This would mean that pricey mobile services such as 4G were no longer required, which the scientists believe would lead to more mobile internet use, and a wealth of economic benefits.
    “Implementation of our approach would have far-reaching consequences,” said Arnd Weber of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at KIT.
    “Individuals, institutions and companies would be far less dependent on expensive mobile communications networks in conducting their digital communication. This would also be of great economic benefit.”
    In addition to providing direct, measurable cost savings, the technology could, according to the researchers, result in the development of a host of new technologies just as existing WiFi has.
    It could also provide direct benefits during disaster scenarios, as a means of providing updates and enabling communication. 
    However, the big challenge here is convincing governments that this is the right move.
    Many have argued they these frequencies are common property and therefore should be made available to the public free of charge, a view that has been opposition from a number of people, including the late Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase.
    Coase argued that the frequencies should be auctioned off to ensure they are most effectively used, and the money used by governments to fund other services.
    Others have also argued that congestion would make these lower frequency networks unworkable, however Weber and his colleague Jens Elsner argue that it is possible to avoid such congestion with the right technological approach.

    • Blogger Comments
    • Facebook Comments

    34 comments:

    1. Into the kitchen and make me a sandwich. Will that get me convicted? Does the law go both ways, especially since at least half of all verbal abuse starts with the b**tch yelling and screaming at hubby for a week out of each month?

      Please, keep that crap on your island.

      ReplyDelete
    2. I believe the problem is in assuming that there is "intelligence" driving the attacks.

      ReplyDelete
    3. BaronGreenback_1November 25, 2014

      So what happens when the shoe is on the other foot i cant see woman being sent to prison.Another Law by created by loonies

      ReplyDelete
    4. A TRUE FREE MARKET, not the STATE Capitalism,(CORPORATISM) we have now, is the PROPER ANSWER.


      FIRST action should be to REMOVE the Money MONOPOLY which the PRIVATE banks have and RETURN to a "PEOPLE'S" money- For Canada the true BANK of Canada Bank notes and for America -U.S.Treasury Notes-ABSOLUTELY no borrowing from Private Banks, such as the Federal Reserve, which is neither "Federal" nor has RESERVES and NO INTEREST on so-called Money issued by the Governments.


      3 Presidents were murdered who tried to do that SUCCESSFULLY

      ReplyDelete
    5. Truman GoldenNovember 25, 2014

      this is crazy. marriage is not safe for men and the only way men are to stay safe and sane is to not get married and never enter into longterm relationship. MGTOW all the way.

      ReplyDelete
    6. Truman GoldenNovember 25, 2014

      of course women are going to be the protected gender and it a woman is charged she will claim that she iddi it because of abuse or some nonsense that will get her off. the law is implemented to keep men oppressed and disposable.

      ReplyDelete
    7. The British government can't get the pedos out of politics but they can get hard time laid on for a shouting match. We're next Canada.

      ReplyDelete
    8. BaronGreenback_1November 25, 2014

      My thoughts as well

      ReplyDelete
    9. gooseroosterNovember 25, 2014

      Unbelievable. Completely unbelievable. So I suppose this is about a breadwinner not giving every last penny to his wife, even when she asks for money to buy things the family cannot afford...things I'm sure the prosecutors would deem essential, like designer jeans, or a designer hand bag, or hair extensions. They are simply trying to destroy marriage.

      ReplyDelete
    10. Thankfully here in the U.S., at least on paper, we have laws that that prohibit such overly vague laws... So telling your wife a certain dress makes her 'look fat' *might* be a felony, if it's part of a "pattern"??? Lol, talk about textbook unconstitutionally vague... There have been several studies that show that when it comes to such 'low level' conflict women are more often the aggressor. The fact that this law is already being called out as aimed at men, when the science shows women just as (if not more so) guilty, proves this will be arbitrarily enforced as a tool of repression against men...

      Along with all men, intelligent women need to fight back against such nonsense laws otherwise they're liable to suffer the inevitable extremist backlash in the opposite direction from fed up men (which might include wearing a burka, losing the right to vote, to own property on their own, etc.) They think now it couldn't happen here in the west, but they are sorely mistaken.

      ReplyDelete
    11. What of the rights of men and women who ENJOY being dominated and controlled, and choose it as their preferred relationship dynamic? Is this law not prohibiting their 'lifestyle choice'? The intolerance shown by this woman is sickening.

      ReplyDelete
    12. gooseroosterNovember 25, 2014

      It is a shame, but a man exposes himself to serious risk by getting married. How are we supposed to have normal lives>

      ReplyDelete
    13. Never get married.

      ReplyDelete
    14. It's getting to the point where women and men should be segregated. If laws like these keep popping up, a men can be charged with a felony if he looks at a women funny. God help us all. Lunatics have taken over.

      ReplyDelete
    15. And cue the floodgates for Islam... You think that's accidental? Western society has already been killed. Us out on the branches just don't realize the trunk has already been hollowed out as we whither and die (along with the greatest civilization the world has ever known, that our forefathers fought, sacrificed, and died to bring into being...) We let it be killed without even putting up a fight.

      ReplyDelete
    16. go
      And cue the floodgates for Islam... You think that's accidental? Western society has already been killed. Us out on the branches just don't realize the trunk has already been hollowed out as we whither and die (along with the greatest civilization the world has ever known, that our forefathers fought, sacrificed, and died to bring into being...) We let it be killed without even putting up a fight.

      ReplyDelete
    17. Tell me again why we saved Britain in WWII

      ReplyDelete
    18. You may be right. The thing is, it's not the muslims that are opening the floodgates. It's people with a special interest in the middle east. It starts with a z.

      ReplyDelete
    19. Indeed. Sad you won't even say Zionists for fear of their wrath. Something needs to be done about that.

      ReplyDelete
    20. The government wants to have only individual citizens, not families, not couples. The children, of course, they want for sex.

      ReplyDelete
    21. You're preaching to the choir son. I was born and raised in a country that can and will put me in jail for criticising Israel. Canada. Zionist Occupied Territory. Forgive me if I like to keep my head down. At least I have the courage to squeak about it from time to time.

      ReplyDelete
    22. Look up cultural marxism. It will explain everything.

      ReplyDelete
    23. So, now the spouse gets no prior warnings to the final abuse cycle often resulting in suicide or homicide??????

      ReplyDelete
    24. Yeah I can't even imagine what that must be like. Utterly unfree. Far too much of western civilization finds itself in this 'excessively civilized' state where even the unpleasantness of having a societal self preservation instinct is surprised... Then they get off having a superiority complex about it (we'll see whose superior when France is under Sharia law.)

      We aren't a whole lot better off down here in the U.S., but maybe a bit... I hope that we might actually be 'redneck enough' down here to eventually throw off the parasites. You and yours are more than welcome if it gets to be a bit much (I've heard the inequality is almost on par with here, but at least we can call a spade a spade... For now.)

      ReplyDelete
    25. Since when is separation or divorce not sufficient recourse for a significant other whose being an a-hole? Laws like this are a slap in the face to real victims of domestic violence... There is no parity between a husband holding a gun to his wives head versus calling her fat and not letting her run the checkbook. These people are insane.

      ReplyDelete
    26. What's this "we" crap? I had nothing to do with it, and would sanction sinking the Airstrip at first opportunity.

      ReplyDelete
    27. Shari PetersonNovember 25, 2014

      They won't do this because their purpose is to destroy the economy to drive the nation into the NWO, not save the economy and subsequently, it's solvency and sovereignty.

      ReplyDelete
    28. Over my cold dead corpse.

      ReplyDelete
    29. This has to be fake or something...Totalitarianism can't be this obvious...

      ReplyDelete
    30. Bully for you!

      ReplyDelete
    31. rape and eat children, however, and you get to run the country and immunity from law enforcement no matter how egregious the display

      ReplyDelete
    32. they already did that a long time ago.

      where do you think schizophrenia comes from

      ReplyDelete
    33. gooseroosterNovember 26, 2014

      Brother, you are so right. It's such a scam. Marriage shouldn't be what its become. It's sad, because marriage should be the absolute foundation for our society, but it's not. Its really a trap. An insidious trap. And I'm a huge supporter of marriage. But in the U.S., its so incredibly stacked against the man. I'm speaking from long years of experience.

      ReplyDelete
    34. I totally agree. I don't even think the state needs to enforce gender roles... 'Normal' people (because there in fact is such a thing, and by definition not everyone is it) will often choose traditional gender roles on their own when their own preferences and characteristics are respected.

      ReplyDelete

    Thanks For Sharing Your Views

    Item Reviewed: Scientists urge governments to turn old TV frequencies into free “super WiFi” Rating: 5 Reviewed By: Orraz
    Scroll to Top