Coalition: ISP Giants Shouldn't Get To Bid On Upper 700MHzSpectrum the 'last hope' for meaningful broadband competition... ( old news - 11:12AM Friday Apr 06 2007) tags: fcc · business · wirelessYesterday the Save Our Spectrum Coalition, a collection of consumer groups (real ones), hardware vendors, small WISP operators and others filed comments with the FCC "suggesting competitors to the large DSL and cable modem service providers could use the open access to provide a broadband alternative," notes InfoWorld (via Daily Wireless). This is, of course, tied to the push by Dell, Microsoft and Google to gain approval for a new device that would use spectrum freed by the broadcast industry's shift to digital transmission. The group is "urging the commission to write rules that ensure consumers and the public are the ultimate winners in the auction of this valuable spectrum, not the cable and Bell company broadband duopoly," says Jeannine Kenney of the Consumers Union. "This spectrum, in our view, represents the last, best hope for meaningful competition in broadband," says Kenney.
Related:- New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
- FCC To Shorten Landline Port Window
- Exploring FCC Warrantless Home Searches
- FCC To Investigate Exclusive Handset Deals
- WSJ: AT&T Is Dying
- FCC To Probe AT&T, Verizon Wireless
- FCC Votes To Investigate Wireless Industry
- FCC Lusts After TV Industry Spectrum
|
 |  | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | 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. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| 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. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | Hell hath frozen over ...
said by GOLFnSUN  :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
| Re: Hell hath frozen over ... 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
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Hell hath frozen over ... Hams are licensed and tend to respect it. Not a good example for you.
CB is a mess. FRS has very limited range.
Consumer WiFi has such limited range that it's not much of an issue unless you're in an apartment building. In that case it's a free-for-all. WISPs tend to use highly directional antennas. People attempt to modify equipment and add amplifiers to get past the interference. This is not 'equilibrium' unless you think barely functional systems are a good thing.
You give the mass market anything that can transmit more than a few hundred feet and you've got RF anarchy.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| 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. | |
| | shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR | Re: this auction DOES need special rules well said. | |
| | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Even if there are special rules, the big guys will just purchase the winners after the auction. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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 | |
| 
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. | |
| 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 | Re: A modest proposal 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. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| 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. | |
| | | 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs: | 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. | |
| | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: A modest proposal That's a FEATURE.  | |
| 
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. | |
| ealskriptik
join:2004-08-29
Cookstown, ON
| Can we have our cake and eat it too (rural and urban bb) I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to have a two-part system for the use of the spectrum allocated to data services in 700MHz.
One portion would allow rural providers (wisp or other rural broadband using 700MHz for their BACKHAUL) to use focused, directional systems that need to either fit within a spec or be licensed. Backhaul is a major issue because if any large data pipe (i.e. T-1 to DS-3) is available, it will be insanely expensive. This would allow them to have long distance links to cheaper PoP's.
In tandem, there is licensed and unlicensed use of the 700MHz spectrum for local, low/medium power point multipoint devices. I.E. licensed CDMA, IDEN, Wimax segments combined with unlicensed segments for things we currently put in the ISM band, but perhaps with a restriction to narrow it to data-only devices.
If this kind of overlay is possible, it would allow a diversity of use, and use the lower frequency to increase signal range and penetration. Personally, I'm more skilled with FTTN/FTTC/VDSL/VDSL2 and the technical challenges of telcos, so I don't know if that kind of spectrum use is possible and more importantly, practical. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Unlicensed spectrum in this band could bring chaos