TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
3 edits |  Unlicensed spectrum in this band could bring chaos
»www.freepress.net/spectrum/
Instead of striking such a short-sighted deal, Congress could have opened up the airwaves as "unlicensed spectrum" that everyone would be free to access for high-speed, wireless broadband service. But they can still make use of the unused portions of the broadcast bands called "white spaces," reallocating it to unlicensed use
The spectrum being vacated or underutilized by the broadcasters, however, is prime real estate — the Malibu of the airwaves.
Signals at these lower frequencies travel farther at lower powers and can go through obstacles like walls, trees and mountains. That means lower infrastructure costs for broadband providers. And thereby creates a tremendous potential for unlicensed users to step all over each other.
Wifi interference is already bad enough at low power and the inability to penetrate obstacles easily. Can you imagine the mess if these new frequencies are opened to unlicensed use.
If these groups want small companies to be able to get a piece of the spectrum in this band, put that in the pending bills before Congress. Opening the band for unlicensed use is not the way to spread wireless broadband.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| this auction DOES need special rules
if special rules are not put in place for the auction of this spectrum, most (if not all) of the spectrum will be captured by large incumbents. If this happens, new services will not appear; if the services do appear, it will be a long time coming. Some incumbents will likely purchase spectrum just to sit on it and block competitors.
Will there be special rules? with this FCC, not likely
Will there be new services anytime soon? No. |
|
xyar
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Portland, OR
| What I'd like to see
What I'd like to see (which won't happen) is some spectrum set aside for small companies to obtain licenses for their spectrum so it can be handled in a controlled manner, but the FCC won't put anything in that would benefit small providers without allowing the big companies to snatch it all up. I'd sure like to see more competition though. |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR | reply to nasadude
Re: this auction DOES need special rules
well said. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Unlicensed spectrum in this band could bring chaos
The first person who can get anything at 700 MHz and above to go through a mountain will be a billionaire. And will have had to repeal a couple of natural laws.
Who are these people? If they don't have even a marginal grasp on the physics of it how the hell are they qualified to have any opinion on this?
I also love the "white space" frenzy. They're ripping at it like a bunch of hyenas after a rabbit. Once the TV reallocation is complete those will be mostly in rural areas which they could be serving right now with existing tech if they truly were concerned with serving rural areas. They aren't.
added: Got a chance to read through some of their 'reports'. Much of their argument for urban areas is based on use of frequencies directly adjacent to two full power stations, one on each side. That's a very naive assumption, considering that the amount of interference from those two would certainly wipe out any reliable reception for a Part 15 device unless it was dead center between them. WiFi Channel 6 anyone? 
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to TKJunkMail
I don't know, WISPs seem to be popping up all over the place using 2.4 GHz without to many problems. In PtP and PtMP scenarios, you won't have nearly the amount of interference that you would have with people throwing up omni antennas everywhere like traditional WiFi environments. Should the spectrum be unlicensed? That's debatable. Should it however be easily available for businesses desiring to offer service and not be gobbled up by large incumbents that desire to only strengthen their spectrum arsenal without any real plans to employ the spectrum? I believe so. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to nasadude
Re: this auction DOES need special rules
Even if there are special rules, the big guys will just purchase the winners after the auction. |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | 700 mhz will not make good broadband freqs.
Just like 900 mhz does'nt. Give up more 2ghz-3.5ghz UL spectrum
and sell the 700 to the cell co's
Just give us another 150 MHZ in the above stated range.
FCC = Full Corporate Control |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.....
Deja Vu.
Does anybody remember when the PCS spectrum came on the market? The FCC, in order to prevent the "big guys" from monopolizing PCS, sliced and diced the spectrum both technically and geographically to the point where it looked like a birthday cake that had been through a Cuisinart.
To what result? We have more players, but the only useful ones are still part of the "big guy" networks.
(Of course, the FCC also decided to play economic experiment with the auction strategy, and forgot to get bankruptcy excluded in the authorizing legislation, so PCS was twisted 3-ways before it even got out of the box....)
I essentially agree with the "Save Our Spectrum Coalition", but urge caution lest the protections severely hamper use without long-term benefit.
(And yes, I'll freely admit that now the PCS frequencies FINALLY got up and running, cellular service is much more competitive than it used to be. Maybe the SOS answer is right--keep the old players where they are, and only let the new players in. That approach would have been much simpler than what the FCC did with PCS.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | A modest proposal
Return 700Mhz to TV and use 55-85 Mhz for long distance NLOS terrestrial data. |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | 55-85mhz about as usefull as 2 cans & sting for BB since there is no way to control crosstalk etc.
Give us more ghz freqs. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Hell hath frozen over ...
Hell hath frozen over ...
said by TKJunkMail  :And thereby creates a tremendous potential for unlicensed users to step all over each other... Opening the band for unlicensed use is not the way to spread wireless broadband. Wow, TCH is advocating more government regulation!? Next thing you know, he'll want government permits issued for different categories of stores, so that competitors "don't step on each other". Heaven forbid that Lowes should open a store right next to Home Depot! -- wait a minute, that seems to be Lowes' exact business strategy.
It's not at all clear to me that unlicensed use leads to a "tragedy of the commons" anarchy. One could equally argue that what develops instead is a sort of self-regulating Nash equilibrium between competing users.
What the FCC is doing in fact is hedging their bets with two appraches (and this article seems to confuse the two). In the 700-800 MHz portion, they are auctioning off exclusive licenses. In unused TV channels below 700 MHz, they're moving toward unlicensed use.
I predict the 700-800 MHz licensed band will be used for more $80/month mobile broadband services. The sub-700 MHz unlicensed white space will be used by WISP's, many of them smaller outfits, to more economically serve terrain- and foliage-challenged regions, where 2.4 GHz is not practical today. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by PDXPLT :Wow, TCH is advocating more government regulation!? Next thing you know, he'll want government permits issued for different categories of stores, so that competitors "don't step on each other". There's a difference. Physical stores are prevented from "stepping" on each other because they literally require physical space. You can't build a Lowes on top of a Home Depot store. Yes they can be next to each other and compete, which is great btw. There is no "physical separation" in unlicensed spectrum, therefore allowing providers to step all over each other. Two unlicensed transceivers right next to each other has potential to cause problems. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to russotto
Re: A modest proposal
Channels 2-6 will eventually go away on their own, TV-wise; they don't work all that well for DTV and the antennas are twice the size or bigger than that needed for 7+. You can bet that frequency range won't be used for broadband access if/when that happens though.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Re: Hell hath frozen over ...
Precisely. It's no different than having two competing radio or TV stations on adjacent channels. That works fine. Putting them both on the same frequency obviously doesn't.
Self-regulation of RF spectrum users has never worked. Ever.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Unlicensed spectrum in this band could bring chaos
Absolutely right, Doc. This spectrum will be bought up, then sold, and sold again, until a lot of people make money for nothing and the telcos own the spectrum.
Nah, I ain't cynical. Much. |
|
Dan P
@WYOMING.COM
| Would work great where I live....
700MHz band would work great where I live in Wyoming.
I can get exactly 1 TV station using an antenna (PBS).
Even though I work for a wisp (RF Engineer), there are places that are just too distant to reach with any financial concerns in mind.
Given the 700MHz band, those people could be reached, giving them an alternative to satellite bb.
I'd like to see the 700MHz band be semi-licenced. Meaning that it is only available to a few users in any given geographic area for the expressed purpose of providing broadband, and not available to the general public. If a user is not actively using the freq. then the licence is revoked. |
|
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs: | reply to RadioDoc
Re: A modest proposal
I can just imagine the chaos after the sunspot cycle comes back up, and the F2 layer starts bouncing broadband all over the country!
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Hell hath frozen over ...
said by RadioDoc :Self-regulation of RF spectrum users has never worked. Ever. I beg to differ. There are plenty of examples:
-- There are 600,000+ Amateur radio operators in the U.S.; while they are licensed to operate in certain bands, within those bands they are entirely self-regulated; e.g., no licensee is given exclusive use of the spectrum. They seem to manage themselves quite well.
-- FRS, CB, and other unlicensed (or non-exclusive licensed) 2-way radio services similarly function the way these services were intended.
-- Wi-Fi-based WISP's and hotspots share spectrum on a non-exclusive basis. In urban areas especially, you hear about conflicts between coffee shops, etc. The parties usually manage to find a way to compromise.
Really, this issue of sharing use of spectrum is not fundamentally different than any other application of the classic "commons" problem. It was axiomatic in the field of economics (game theory) that these situations would inevitably lead to anarchy, until Nash proved that equilibrium conditions can exist.
This is a hot research topic in university EE dept's (for example "The Multiuser Non-cooperative Cognitive Radio Networks Viewed as a Game-theoretic Problem" in »bul.ece.ubc.ca/Simon_Haykin_Cogn···2007.pdf.)
Self-regulation was much more difficult, if not impossible, with the state of technology back in the 1930's, when the FCC was first created by the Communications Act, and what the FCC now refers to as the "Command and Control" exclusive-use licensing schemes were enacted. With connitive sensing and flexibily radio technology, they are going to be more and more moving to more modern, flexible spectrum approaches.
Go to the FCC web site, and read the Spectrum Policy Task Force Report, to see where things are headed. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to nasadude
Re: this auction DOES need special rules
just make a rule that you have to use the spectrum you buy for services to the public with in one year or your license auto revokes.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
