Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 20, 2012 @05:01AM from the bumper-crop dept.

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.'"

98 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why would they need permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:02 · Score: 0

I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?
1. Re:Why would they need permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:10 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I don't know much about data transmission, but I do know that fat girls suck the best dick. Holy shit, man, you've never lived until you've had your dick sucked by a fat chick. They will do it each and every time you two are in the same bed together. And they will swallow it all and ask for seconds.
  They will be ever-faithful to you as long as you keep buying them guacamole fries. They also love anal, but I think anal is disgusting - I mean, after all, shit comes out of there!
  In summa, Google must get permission for the receivers because they are an eyesore, and there are a lot of rich yuppie nimbies living on the hilltop overlooking the data center. Fuck those guys, they're assholes anyway.
2. Re:Why would they need permission? by vlm · 2012-02-20 05:10 · 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
  Pretty much first come first served.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:Why would they need permission? by NewWorldDan · 2012-02-20 05:15 · 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.
4. Re:Why would they need permission? by ArsenneLupin · 2012-02-20 05:21 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Holy shit, man, you've never lived until you've had your dick sucked by a fat chick.
  Or, as an old Italian saying goes: You can't insert your key into a lard ass, but the mouth that goes with it will gladly accept it!
5. Re:Why would they need permission? by russotto · 2012-02-20 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?
  If you follow the links, the FCC said Google Fiber didn't need permission for the Ku band receivers. They amended 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 and did not actually connect it to anything).
6. Re:Why would they need permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:58 · Score: -1
  
  "I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?"
  The government is reading the minds of the people in Iowa, to gather 'intelligence'.
  Waste of time really.
7. Re:Why would they need permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if the FCC would have any jurisdiction if you just built an enormous parabolic reflector and did not actually connect it to anything
  FTFY. And if it caused interference to any licensed users, sure they would.
8. Re:Why would they need permission? by anagama · 2012-02-20 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  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
  A 16' dish will cost you $5949.95
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
9. Re:Why would they need permission? by vlm · 2012-02-20 06:59 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
10. Re:Why would they need permission? by dbc · 2012-02-20 07:25 · Score: 3, 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*
11. Re:Why would they need permission? by NewWorldDan · 2012-02-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Why would they need permission? by vlm · 2012-02-20 08:16 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
13. Re:Why would they need permission? by khallow · 2012-02-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  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?
14. Re:Why would they need permission? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  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.
15. Re:Why would they need permission? by vlm · 2012-02-21 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  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 are too weak, maybe you just don't care. Nobody will force you to aggressively demand your legal rights. If you want to use the FCC as a big stick, you have to ... ask them. This sort of pre-registration is all that's going on.
  You tell the FCC you're a satellite RX station at a specific frequency and as a primary user they WILL NOT license a secondary user to do pt to pt on that same frequency if there's any realistic chance they'll interfere with you. On the other hand, if there's nobody within 150 km or whatever who filed as a primary, they assume its unused and fair game to license a secondary on top of that frequency.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
16. Re:Why would they need permission? by X0563511 · 2012-02-21 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Oh the frostiness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:03 · Score: -1

ov the fisht prost.
We need higher speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:04 · Score: 0

Google's pilot studies about extremely high-speed fiber connections are extremely important, so that we can run all the decentralized encrypted darknets we will need in the future as fast as the Internet is today.
1. Re:We need higher speed by Hartree · 2012-02-20 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Be sure to use the government mandated ROT13 encryption to comply with all applicable regulations.
Redundant? by SJHillman · 2012-02-20 05:05 · 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.
1. Re:Redundant? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-02-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Not redundant. It is referring to antennas placed directly on land as opposed to on an existing structure like a building.
3. Re:Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  "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.
  Let's say a Big Corp needed to get around some law in their native land. Putting an antennae array on an oil drilling platform in international waters would get around such laws.
  And said platform would be owned by an evil billionaire genius with plenty of henchmen and bikini clad beauties that would fall in love with some DARK haired OVER 6 foot British spy and help him take out said platform.
  Unless, said evil billionaire is really EVIL then the spy could be a short red headed spy with bad teeth.
  Yeah Baby!
4. Re:Redundant? by dkleinsc · 2012-02-20 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Well, the headline also suggests silver waves of growing antennas across the prairie, until somebody comes by with a combine harvester.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:Redundant? by SJHillman · 2012-02-20 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  But this is Iowa. Not much in the way of international waters in Iowa.
6. Re:Redundant? by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-20 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  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 a boost.
  Pigeon net - could work well in crowded city environments.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Redundant? by schlachter · 2012-02-20 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  their original request to put satellite antennas on people was rejected...
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
kansas? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-02-20 05:16 · Score: -1, Troll

yeah, if there's one thing this country really needs; its higher speed internet for the fundies in kansas.
let me remind you how backward kansas is. they are still 'not sure' about evolution and even modern science befuddles them.
THESE are the people you honor with very high speed networking?
(head asplodes)
I know land is cheap there and you can make sweatheat deals with the local corrupticians, but really google, why not upgrade a more progressive area of the country?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
1. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:21 · Score: -1
  
  Hello, you ignorant fuck. You do realize that people are not homogenous? One group does not speak for the whole. Now go kiss off.
  Thanks.
2. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  I think your getting confused with Iowa!
3. Re:kansas? by aardvarkjoe · 2012-02-20 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, if there's one thing this country really needs; its higher speed internet for the fundies in kansas.
  let me remind you how backward kansas is. they are still 'not sure' about evolution and even modern science befuddles them.
  THESE are the people you honor with very high speed networking?
  (head asplodes)
  I know land is cheap there and you can make sweatheat deals with the local corrupticians, but really google, why not upgrade a more progressive area of the country?
  When I read things like this, it makes me think that the "progressives" are deserving of every bit of the antagonism that they get from the "conservatives."
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
4. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Better access to media and the realities of the world around them will probably help the situation there, not the opposite.
  There's a reason that educated people trend liberal.
5. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  let me remind you how backward kansas is. they are still 'not sure' about evolution and even modern science befuddles them.
  No, we're quite sure about evolution. It's the politicians that arent, just like every other place in the country.
6. Re:kansas? by AngryDeuce · 2012-02-20 05:35 · 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.
7. Re:kansas? by pr0fessor · 2012-02-20 05:36 · 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.
8. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  I know land is cheap there and you can make sweatheat deals with the local corrupticians, but really google, why not upgrade a more progressive area of the country?
  Because most likely, the people in a little area of Kansas aren't going to hit what is probably a 10 gig data cap within the first hour of connection. Run that same line to MY neighborhood, and I'll need an extra hard drive in a week (which is EXACTLY WHY this "experiment" will never get beyond a sleepy little Kansas neighborhood).
9. Re:kansas? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-02-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
10. Re:kansas? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2012-02-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  At least in Iowa we know how to spell "you're."
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
11. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hey! Who are you calling gay?
12. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because we need to ONLY let like-minded people and ideas into our ivory tower echo chamber club! That'll keep those dirty outsiders out! Those primitive types, only letting like-minded people and ideas into their little... ...hang on...
13. Re:kansas? by Hartree · 2012-02-20 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  Just substitute in "humans" for progressives and conservatives.
  Regardless of evolved or created, humans love nothing better than talking trash about "those" people.
14. Re:kansas? by AmberBlackCat · 2012-02-20 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  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 says it all.
15. Re:kansas? by khallow · 2012-02-20 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  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.
16. Re:kansas? by tigeba · 2012-02-20 06:44 · 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.
17. Re:kansas? by khallow · 2012-02-20 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  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.
18. Re:kansas? by tigeba · 2012-02-20 06:52 · 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.
19. Re:kansas? by Dishevel · 2012-02-20 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  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. I am really starting to believe that we will not look at what is happening till all is run by our benevolent government and we are all working for the government. Then when all is run by or massively regulated by the government and there are no evil corporations left. If all is not fun and games at that time can we please duct tape the mouths of all those who brought us here?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
20. Re:kansas? by RJBeery · 2012-02-20 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  By attempting to give a reasonable answer you're kind of legitimizing the parent troll's point...that the local market's (supposed) political views should be considered when "honoring" them with high speed internet. This is offensive on many levels.
21. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  I live in a rural area, but I have plenty of access to technology (and I work at NASA...), and I'm staunchly conservative.
  So, thanks for your ignorant generalization of us rural folk, you insensitive clod. Conservatives aren't always conservative because they are 'ignorant to modern ways' as you would imply... How many ignorant 'progressives' are there in the depressed impoverished city centers with plenty of access to a well stocked public library? You disgust me with your narrow-minded world view.
22. Re:kansas? by AngryDeuce · 2012-02-20 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  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's reserved for the people that want to censor books, make Christianity the state religion, ban evolution, etc.
  However, out of curiosity, seeing as how you live out in the country, how many of your neighbors would you call "progressive"? I ask honestly, because in my visits to extended family that live out in the country (who are pretty much all conservative, except for the kids, who spend all their time on the internet) I don't often hear many people espousing "progressive" viewpoints. Not to say that they don't exist, but, for instance, I've rarely heard anyone come down on the progressive side of many issues out there. Especially now that we're out of Iraq (that was one thing we all agreed on, getting the fuck out of Iraq).
23. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  I live in Memphis, TN. A Progressive Heaven.
  It's absolutely reverse racist, poor as poor can be, incredibly high violent crime rate, with the highest property taxes of a large city in the state.
  Many of the folks here have an "I'm entitled" attitude, and that Obama is going to take care of them... and frankly, it's REALLY scary.
24. Re:kansas? by treeves · 2012-02-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  -Fock you.
  (p-chem joke.)
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
25. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  If I can generalize like you do, a majority of the "progressives" around here are the sort that live on government benefits, but that's an ignorant generalization that doesn't account for everyone. 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. But for every one of the kind of conservatives you seem to have such vitriol for there are just as many 'progressives' in the urban areas who are voting in the guy with the best handouts which is a very serious problem... Eventually, who's going to pay the taxes? I can quit my job, have some kids, and live for free with a 52" flat screen from Rent A Center... Steaks and fresh food every night, and I'm not joking I've seen it. Some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in my fair rural city are being blighted by slumlords eager to convert them to Section 8 housing. Living in a blue state, we get nailed by the higher taxes and some ridiculously excessive environmental regulations that just don't make sense 'out in the country'. That's just the tip of the iceberg of why we're conservative.
26. Re:kansas? by AngryDeuce · 2012-02-20 12:18 · Score: 2
  
  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. Now, if you take exception to that, I'm sorry, but I admit I don't have much respect for the anti-science homophobic bigots. I never said all conservatives were this way, I know plenty of conservatives right here in the city that don't care about gays getting married, think abortion should be a mother's choice, etc. Hell, I actually know a gay Republican (although she's admitted she doesn't know what the fuck she's gonna do come November because none of the GOP candidates appeal to her at all, so maybe she's an Independent now).
  I think you immediately jumped to a defensive you did not need to jump to. The GP himself said "fundies". Despite what you may hear to the contrary, most people don't equate conservatives with fundamentalists. Hell, most of the conservatives I know think the fundamentalists are fucking crazy. They just say it a lot nicer than I do.
  And, to be totally honest...as someone who spent a few years only able to afford an apartment in an area with a lot of people on government assistance and living in Section 8 housing, there weren't many people "voting in the guy with the best handouts", because hardly any of them voted at all, even with volunteers standing out on street corners telling people that it was voting day and showing them where their polling place was, within walking distance...I know because I always vote and walked down there myself many times. Still didn't matter, the polls were always dead empty. Contrast this with the much better neighborhood I live in now, just a few miles away from there, I always end up waiting in line 30-45 minutes to vote; going after 6 PM and you're looking at an hour at least (and now that we have fucking voter-ID laws, it'll probably be two).
  So I wouldn't worry too much about people voting on candidates based solely on handouts. A lot of the people I've seen collecting them don't even vote.
27. Re:kansas? by Hartree · 2012-02-20 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  The nick comes from an animal character in an online rpg (a muck). Hartree Fox. ;)
28. Re:kansas? by treeves · 2012-02-21 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well then, they were making the same joke I did. (you may know, but for others benefit...)
  Hartree-Fock is a technique for computing the electronic structure of atoms and molecules.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
29. Re:kansas? by Hartree · 2012-02-21 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
30. Re:kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  You've never been to Maryland then.
GIANRT lemon Snoring boogle GODS by For+a+Free+Internet · 2012-02-20 05:20 · Score: -1

Thety readsmy thoughits and it punches! But the DEVIL will see your card!!!! And he is late.

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
1. Re:GIANRT lemon Snoring boogle GODS by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-20 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Why Kansas? by koan · 2012-02-20 05:21 · Score: 1

All they will use that bandwidth for is farm porn and wrestling.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Google Fiber Inc? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:24 · Score: 0

Unblocks your data tubes and lets all those nourishing ads flood through.
Remember an ad a day keeps Brin & Page happy oligarchs.
Well, at least... by Overzeetop · 2012-02-20 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, at least someone from Kansas City was here on slashdot to confirm your rant.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
content feeds = cable service? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:34 · Score: 0

It sounds like this project is changing from just offering high speed service to offering either an RF overlay system or IPTV platform.
So, Google is going to install a cable headend in Council Bluffs, IA. This is smelling like Google is laying the groundwork to provide broadcast video via their Fiber network, and then start looking into broadcast video via the Internet. Seeing how Google is buying Motorola Mobility (not just cellular communications but also satellite and cable products), they might be trying leverage another part of the company. Owning Moto, gives them a competitive advantage to strong arm content providers. I find this curious because Google begins to become more vertically integrated and they then can strong arm other providers, or make entry into the market for true Internet based video impossible for the little guys because they would raise the cost of the reception and processing equipment via Motorola. On the flip side, this could pave the way for Internet access to be decoupled from video and pots, thus making the dumb pipe for the consumer reality because it breaks the cable oligopolies.
1. Re:content feeds = cable service? by PickyH3D · 2012-02-20 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  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 (could not email a Wave address). They just magically expected everyone to shift at the same time, and for non-techies to magically understand Wave addressing.
  It seems like they just want to throw things out there and hope that they stick, and it really feels like they try to use goodwill to force their way into strong-arm positions. I really was hoping to see Google Fiber enter my market, or somewhere nearby and I thought it was awesome. Now it appears that they are going to transition to piping both internet and TV through the service. I hate cable companies with a passion and I hope that they are broken out of localized monopolies (so much so that I do not even have cable in my house; I use free Hulu and Netflix), but Google entering the market under false pretenses just comes off just as sketchily if they intend to turn free into paid later.
  I used to blame their old CEO (Schmidt) for such behavior and lack of quality effort, but it seems like it may be systemic within the company. Of course, it could be that he is still the Chairman, and he is still driving his idiocy into the pavement.
2. Re:content feeds = cable service? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  No doubt Schmidt is an imbecile who did a lot of damage, but he is not the one causing it today. It's assholes like Vic Gundotra and Andy Rubin that pretty much dictate where the company goes these days. Larry Page, despite being a brilliant engineer, has no idea of how to run a company. So they let him go on with these crackhead projects once in a while to keep him (and Sergey) happy.
  --
  Marcan, asshole and proud.
maybe they can get the best NHL CI HD that the oth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:35 · Score: 0

maybe they can get the best NHL CI HD other out of market sports like MLB EI, and NBA LP that the others don't have.
1 don't uses in demand
2. USE WGN 9 HD yes the local one (same thing as the WGN Canadian feed) and WCIU HD
3. Use the canadian HD feeds CBC (2-3 HD games at the same time) rogers sports net's East, Ontario, West, Pacific, Sports Net One, + the sports net one RSN feeds Flames, Oilers , Vancouver, Senators. The TSN feeds TSN HD and TSN 2 HD + the RSN feeds jets and habs. Also the the score HD and leafs tv HD.
4. Dual feeds for all games that have 2 feeds in HD.
5. a HD MIX channel for all as well.
Internationally by hey · 2012-02-20 05:51 · Score: 3, 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.
1. Re:Internationally by VortexCortex · 2012-02-20 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  If only copyright allowed us to skirt distribution rights...
But are they organic? by Xphile101361 · 2012-02-20 05:54 · Score: 1

Will these Antennae be grown organically and do they produce waste that could be used for bio-fuel?
1. Re:But are they organic? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-02-20 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
Iowa Nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:03 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y
We aren't all hicks.
"at speeds more than 100 times faster..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:04 · Score: 0

So they're laying down plain old 100 mbit copper?
Net neutrality issues? by Seor+Jojoba · 2012-02-20 06:07 · Score: 2

This approach illustrates how a company can provide content over favorable bandwitdth/networking conditions without running afoul of typical network neutrality rules. Not saying it is good or bad yet--just noting that building special pipes/signalling systems for certain content seems to be a loophole.
1. Re:Net neutrality issues? by SleazyRidr · 2012-02-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
2. Re:Net neutrality issues? by Seor+Jojoba · 2012-02-20 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, like you, I'm reluctant to say it's a bad thing Google is doing, and its definitely not so onerous as intentionally slowing down other content delivery. But I can imagine a future where the infrastructure spending is poured into special pipes to content partners while general connectivity to everything else is neglected. In that case, Google (or others) hasn't done anything to hamper the general Internet, but as investment in maintaining it goes down, it becomes slower and more unreliable.
3. Re:Net neutrality issues? by SleazyRidr · 2012-02-20 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  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...
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
Patent? by michelcolman · 2012-02-20 06:10 · Score: 1

I actually misread that as "Google Seeks To Patent Antenna Farm In Iowa"
Mod parent down by Animats · 2012-02-20 06:11 · Score: 3, 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.)
Agricultural Question: by Hartree · 2012-02-20 06:13 · Score: 0

"Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa"
I wonder what kind of fertilizer they plan to use?
1. Re:Agricultural Question: by 4phun · 2012-02-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Google Seeks To Plant Antenna Farm In Iowa"
  I wonder what kind of fertilizer they plan to use?
  Shame Dung.
Paying attention to what's important: by Hartree · 2012-02-20 06:26 · Score: 1

Indeed. Certainly wouldn't want to give those Kansans any distraction from growing food for your portly cube dwelling butt.
1. Re:Paying attention to what's important: by gmhowell · 2012-02-20 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
2. Re:Paying attention to what's important: by Hartree · 2012-02-20 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  "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... ;)
3. Re:Paying attention to what's important: by gmhowell · 2012-02-20 15:01 · Score: 2
  
  This conversation about meth production should somehow link to that story about truckers hauling nuclear loads.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
4. Re:Paying attention to what's important: by Hartree · 2012-02-20 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
5. Re:Paying attention to what's important: by gmhowell · 2012-02-21 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Dropping nuclear loads at the truck stop? I see you've seen the bathrooms at TAs as well.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Googles Video Super head ends by nevermindme · 2012-02-20 06:34 · Score: 1

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.

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 converters and are not very sexy places these days...2-6 NEXUS 7K/6513Es and a whole bunch of Scitific Alantic (now Cisco) gear. The largest linups are less than 20-30gig/sec in total. (15mbit/sec is high even for combined HD/SD streams at highest rates for all but major network sports). They would be really smart to put all the commercial insets, EBS, VOD ingest in the cloud infrastructure in existing DCs if they want to recast how to distribute live streams to TVset/settops

It is also possible this is entirely for only VOD injest to their content servers as this is the industry standard way to multicast a stream to clients media servers by the providers and networks. It has been a very cheap way to get 500Gig of VOD files to 40-2000 clients without paying for wireline bandwidth. Send everything you got broadcast...think multicast... off a bird and just send out the keys to lic the content on the VOD servers.

VZ, L3, AT&T, Comcast, and any number of smaller players like Frontier Communications could all provide these services tomorrow for a fee off dishes that they already pay for. And proably would be good choices as backup sites to kanas as you need at least 2 farm locations separated by geographic bands caused by solar and weather interference issues. The more forward thinking content networks could also provide a circuit or MPLS based feed direct to a couple of Googles DCs and bypass all needs for the Satellite sharks involvement in the path for streams of network content.
Cable IP Eng Escapee
1. Re:Googles Video Super head ends by cdrudge · 2012-02-20 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  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 eliminates the chance of any company's greed impacting your service, or at least within your immediate control.
2. Re:Googles Video Super head ends by Wesley+Felter · 2012-02-20 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Googles Video Super head ends by husker_man · 2012-02-20 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  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 (assuming a tornado did pass right through them) would be fairly trashed (e.g. Joplin, MO)
Hey Gooogle!!!! by 4444444 · 2012-02-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Bring some of that 100 x's speed to Seaside Park in Bridgeport

--

http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
not to receive broadcast network data... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:49 · Score: -1

they are to receive instructions from the mother droid hiding behind jupiter.
Google HAARP! by flappinbooger · 2012-02-20 08:43 · Score: 1

Run, they're taking over our minds now!

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Oblig by wrencherd · 2012-02-20 11:06 · Score: 1

I'm sure if Google builds it, "they" will com.
More Deception? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 15:05 · Score: 0

HAARP started this way up in ak but maybe its a relay to underground denver complex so they can run their driverless cars and scavenge the earth for mushrooms after the the big one.. one thing should not trust this bunch
Southpark by Candyban · 2012-02-20 22:00 · Score: 1

their original request to put satellite antennas on people was rejected...
I guess too many were traumatised by Cartman's satellite dish to ever make this viable option.