dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Boss Insists He Was Proven Right About Spectrum Crunch
Just As Many Start Realizing Crunch Was Bogus

We've long noted that the bogeyman of dwindling broadband capacity has been a useful lobbying and policy tool to scare regulators into doing things companies want, even if it's not supported by factual data. The repeatedly debunked "Exaflood" was one such example, wherein carrier lobbyists, think tanks, fauxcademics and fauxsumer advocates all insisted the Internet would implode if carriers weren't given what they wanted -- be that subsidies, steadily-eroded consumer protections, fewer rate caps, regulatory merger approval, etc.

Click for full size
The so-called "spectrum crunch" has played a starring role in this stage play, with incumbent carriers breathlessly insisting we all face wireless armageddon unless carriers again get what they want. Primarily what AT&T and Verizon want is all the spectrum for them, with little left for any new competitors.

In reality, it's less of a capacity crisis and more of a broad, inefficient use of spectrum, thanks to companies that are too sluggish in refarming 2G network spectrum, blundering archaic government agencies, speculators, and spectrum squatters.

Still, in a recent speech at the University of Pennsylvania, FCC boss Julius Genachowski proclaimed that belief in a specrtum crunch is no longer even a question -- it's a universally agreed upon fact:
quote:
In my first speech to the wireless industry (back in 2009), about 3 months after being sworn in, I spoke about the looming spectrum crunch. There were many skeptics then about whether we faced a spectrum crunch. Today virtually every expert confirms it.
The amusing part is that Genachowski is saying this just as the press and said experts are starting to notice that the spectrum crunch is effectively bogus. While everyone with a vested interest in cashing in on either selling or holding spectrum (the government, stock jocks, carriers) has a vested interest in supporting the myth, when people actually bother to look around they notice there wasn't much of a crisis at all. Note recent comments in a piece by Fierce Wireless's Phil Goldstein:
quote:
"I think it [the spectrum crunch] was overblown. And everyone had an interest in pumping up a spectrum crisis," said TMF Associates analyst Tim Farrar. He said the FCC wanted to promote itself as the agency that could spur innovation and expand broadband access; Verizon and AT&T didn't want the FCC to cap the amount of spectrum available to them; companies that speculated with spectrum did not want the market to think they had worthless assets; and smaller carriers wanted more spectrum on the market to lower the price of all spectrum. "Everybody had an interest in talking it up and no one had an interest in saying the emperor has no clothes," he said.
Genachowski clearly wants his legacy to be the man who ushered us into a new wireless age, and what better way to go about that then by conquering a non-existent enemy? Meanwhile his real legacy won't be quite so sexy; incumbent carriers continue to hoard oceans of a precious publicly-owned resource, in the process elbowing out potential competitors for generations to come.
view:
topics flat nest 

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

just stahp

How the hell do we get this guy fired for incompetence?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: just stahp

The only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President. The bad thing about that is that Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

I'm all for big business as long as there is competition.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

The only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President.Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change.

And how do you figure that? Genachowski is Obama's man and all Genachowski is doing is following his Dem orders. A change can only help things.

The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Denver, CO

The Limit

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

This might not be related, but:

»factcheck.org/2012/10/wh ··· ditions/

I'm not saying Obama is better, because Obama is guilty on going back and forth, but if Romney is acting like this now, what makes you think that he will be any different in office? I ask this out of sheer curiosity.

Also:

»www.isidewith.com/obama- ··· e-issues

The fact that the two candidates are similar implies that nothing is really going to change. What are your thoughts on these issues in light of "Genachowski being Obama's man"? Even if this is true, what's to say that Romney won't replace Genachowski with someone similar, IE no backbone?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

said by The Limit:

This might not be related, but:

»factcheck.org/2012/10/wh ··· ditions/

It isn't related.

Also:

»www.isidewith.com/obama- ··· e-issues

The fact that the two candidates are similar implies that nothing is really going to change.

That link shows more difference than similarities and nothing discusses the FCC. So why couldn't the FCC change under a Romney appointed chairman?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

To say that something is bad under Obama so 'a change will only help things' is flawed logic. You ignore the possibility that things could be (and I suspect would be) worse under Romney. Unfortunately, many Romney-ites rely on this very logic to advance his candidacy rather than actually state HOW it would be better.

What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

said by CXM_Splicer:

What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version?

Romney says nothing about FCC directly. His generic anti-regulatory plans could impact the FCC though.
»www.mittromney.com/sites ··· tory.pdf

Only mention of FCC by Romney on his issues web site:

The Federal Communications Commission imposed network neutrality regulations (defying both the legislature and judiciary) that restrict how Internet service providers manage the digital transmissions flowing through their networks.

I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing.

rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

rit56

Member

Re: just stahp

Romney doesn't say anything about anything. He is on both sides of every issue. Really pathetic.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I would strongly disagree. That second part you mention concerning the FCC clearly shows he will put someone in place that will give the incumbents all they want while the consumer continues to get screwed.

The looming net neutrality regulations are the only reason we dont have intertubes for all different services and ridiculous access agreements between carries that will do nothing more than cost consumers more money and line the pockets of the industry they should be protecting us from.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing.

Activist activities? Can you be more specific? Certainly you don't mean the net neutrality issue you quoted from Romney... their 1934 congressional mandate clearly defines this as their jurisdiction. Seeing how the FCC is a regulatory agency, I fail to see how anti-regulatory plans would make it 'better'. More than likely, it is an attempt to make it worse (to the point of useless) in order to bypass its consumer protecting regulations.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by CXM_Splicer:

What are Romney's planned changes for the FCC that would improve it over Obama's version?

Romney says nothing about FCC directly. His generic anti-regulatory plans could impact the FCC though.
»www.mittromney.com/sites ··· tory.pdf

Only mention of FCC by Romney on his issues web site:

The Federal Communications Commission imposed network neutrality regulations (defying both the legislature and judiciary) that restrict how Internet service providers manage the digital transmissions flowing through their networks.

I suspect a Romney appointed FCC Chairman along with the 2 Repubs on commission would gut any activist activities by the FCC. And IMHO, that is a good thing.

Good for consumers how? EXPLAIN or your point is bullshit.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Re: just stahp

I think his point is that Romney's anti-regulatory plans applied to the FCC would be a good thing for big business... he is not concerned with the consumer at all.

The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Denver, CO

The Limit to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer
That's what I was trying to point out, thanks.
The Limit

The Limit to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I think you missed the entire point I was trying to make.

The "big picture" is that nothing is going to change under Romney, and I'm surprised that you think this to be the case.

Did you even go to the second link? Did you read all of the viewpoints? I dare say, varying about 5-6 viewpoints, almost all of the viewpoints are in agreement with each other.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Obama isn't going to replace him so we have to wait for him to retire or another party to take power and replace him.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by battleop:

The only way it's going to happen is if Romney is elected President.Republican's favor big business and the like to give them what they want so nothing will change.

And how do you figure that? Genachowski is Obama's man and all Genachowski is doing is following his Dem orders. A change can only help things.

Yes because Romney is going to be pro-customer and not pro-big business. What in his history has lead you to believe that?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Spectrum Crunch is all BS

its just a ploy to capture the OTA TV frequencies and sell them off for more money than the license fees from the stations generate.

Smart broadcasters will not give up their licenses though.

Naturally of course "reclaimed" spectrum just gets hoarded and never used.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BS

said by Kearnstd:

its just a ploy to capture the OTA TV frequencies and sell them off for more money than the license fees from the stations generate.

Smart broadcasters will not give up their licenses though.

Naturally of course "reclaimed" spectrum just gets hoarded and never used.

The worst hoarder of all is Federal, and State Goverments. Look at Wyoming the Wyoming Highway Patrol is sitting on a bunch of frequency segements in the 6 meter region they have not used since the 1960's, ditto the Wyoming Army National Guard.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BS

said by Transmaster:

The worst hoarder of all is Federal, and State Goverments. Look at Wyoming the Wyoming Highway Patrol is sitting on a bunch of frequency segements in the 6 meter region they have not used since the 1960's, ditto the Wyoming Army National Guard.

The federal government is by far the worst hoarder of spectrum. No one in government talks about how refarming 240 MHz or more of government spectrum under 2 GHz could bring in $Billions from auctions without threatening private sector jobs. Until they do any talk of a spectrum crunch is completely bogus.
big_e
join:2011-03-05

big_e to Transmaster

Member

to Transmaster
Low band VHF has little to no commercial value these days. Too much interference, too much skip and extremely large antenna sizes needed. Channels 2-6 have proved quite useless for digital TV and now are largely abandoned. When it comes to the value of the radio spectrum, low band VHF is the equivalent to swamp land.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: Spectrum Crunch is all BS

said by big_e:

Low band VHF has little to no commercial value these days.

RF channel 6 (82-88 MHz) could be very valuable for digital FM radio use. Other low band VHF could provide supplemental backhaul to fiber optics. There are also possible unlicensed (or licensed amateur) uses.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd
Not saying we don't have hoarders, but to pretend the spectrum crunch doesn't exist is foolish and very short sighted.

Verizon and AT&T have enough spectrum for the next 5 years probably, But we should be looking at a 10 year timetable for spectrum. Sprint and T-mobile will need more spectrum soon, practically as soon as their LTE network build is done.

Even smaller carriers need spectrum yesterday.
Smaller carriers need to be given a better shot at the next spectrum auction and new spectrum needs to be opened up.

To put out a blanket statement like reclaimed spectrum is never used is just plain foolish, what freqencies do you think AT&T and Verizon's LTE networks are running on? Old Analog TV spectrum that was reclaimed. If you want to say they aren't using it fast enough and slowly building things out to appease investors I'll give you that, but your assertion is just plain false. Verizon recently bought AWS spectrum that is has every intention of using as well as AT&T's WCS spectrum buy.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Fix for crunch?

Enable all wireless devices to support all available frequency ranges, then spread the frequencies evenly to all carriers, in the mean time REQUIRE that all devices can roam on each carriers network/share frequencies from other carriers. When a new carrier wants to enter the market, take 1mhz of frequency to each carrier until it's even again. Promote competition and no gaps in coverage, problem solved.

Matt
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Fix for crunch?

Not quite so easy, but I would agree that one universal wireless network would be best for everyone, including the business that want to sell it.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: Fix for crunch?

said by Skippy25:

Not quite so easy, but I would agree that one universal wireless network would be best for everyone, including the business that want to sell it.

If not the "best" at least the most "fair" for businesses and consumers. If Carrier A get's 30 million more subscribers than all the others carriers, then you know who is doing things right and who isn't.

Matt
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Doesn't He Just Look Like a Tool?

As for who can fix it all, no Democrat or Republican will. They're both bought and paid for. The idiots are the ones thinking the electoral process still works at all. Team Red and Team Blue are in it for themselves and their corporate buddies who pay for the campaigns, we're merely just pawns in their game thinking that we're somehow actually getting a voice.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

refarm

Karl hit the crux of the problem "refarming 2G network spectrum" is expensive and screws up profitability of the company while they "refarm." Therefore it will be the very last option a company does to remedy this issue.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: refarm

At&t has been doing this. They moved EDGE to all 1900 MHz to free up much more 850 for UMTS/HSPA. They still have 2100 for smaller cells for congestion relief with 850 overlays for building and hill penetration. They are now slowly shutting down EDGE in some urban areas to deploy LTE on 1900 MHz, to offload locally for current 700 MHz deployments, much the way they are doing for UMTS. That's why I tell friends who even want a basic phone on an MVNO using AT&T to get one that at least does 3G. EDGE is now on lousy 1900 frequencies(coverage and building penetration) as it is being slowly phased out and shut down. I personally got an LTE phone mostly to future proof myself a bit. Otherwise, HSPA+ is fine for now for me.

jfleni
@bhn.net

jfleni

Anon

Re: refarm

EDGE, UMTS/HSPA, LTE, UMTS, MVNO, HSPA+, etc, etc.

If the guy selling tacos in the street talked like that, he'd get deported in an hour!

It's a shame to see educated fools from a thousand different bufoon academies trying so hard to destroy the English language!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to axiomatic

Premium Member

to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:

Karl hit the crux of the problem "refarming 2G network spectrum" is expensive and screws up profitability of the company while they "refarm." Therefore it will be the very last option a company does to remedy this issue.

Refarming also disrupts those people still using older equipment. They have to BUY new devices. Of course, there are those who will say the carrier should just GIVE them new phones.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: refarm

I'm not sure anyone would say give them new phones.

However, anyone thinking that a technology like that will live forever and not need to address the equipment on their end is blind and silly. At this point I would say it is OK to give them a 3 month notice period and let them upgrade on their one by then or lose the service.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: refarm

said by Skippy25:

I'm not sure anyone would say give them new phones.

However, anyone thinking that a technology like that will live forever and not need to address the equipment on their end is blind and silly. At this point I would say it is OK to give them a 3 month notice period and let them upgrade on their one by then or lose the service.

3 months? they just got a 98 1/2 month notice from Verizon. No excuses.
88615298

1 recommendation

88615298 (banned)

Member

Devils' Advocate

And for those who don't what that term means I suggest looking it up before trolling.

Would mobile companies be able to run their network efficiently with ONLY the current allotment of 4G spectrum and if there wasn't any caps once 90% or more of their customers were using 4G devices and wi-fi wasn't an option?

The answer is no. So in that vein he is correct about the spectrum crunch.

What is preventing said crunch is several fold

A) Caps. Customers hate Verizon and at&t getting rid of unlimited but the fact is keeping most of your customers to under 2 GB helps prevent more spectrum from being needed.

B) wi-fi. Training your customers to use wi-fi because of your caps also alleviates the need for more spectrum. Let's face it I could stream Netflix and Pandora all day over wi-fi and it won't effect my cell companies network at all.

C) Spectrum purchases. Julius may be a douche but he nor anyone else could have predicted Verizon would be allowed to purchase spectrum from cable companies back in 2009. This purchase helps alleviate spectrum issues.

D) Spectrum refarming. Once again unless your Nostradamus no one in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or earlier this year could give a time table for when this would happen. Now we know. At&t will refarm 2G in 2017. Verizon will refarm 2G and 3G in 2021. Once again this will also help. But if you say you knew in 2009 WHEN this was going to happen you're full of shit.

E) Advances in technology. No one can predict when advances will come along. Not now, not in 2009. Yes some advances have been made. More will be made. What kind of advances, when they will come and how more helpful they will be no one knows. If anything we overestimate advances. 50 years ago they said by 2012 we'd have moon colonies and we would have humans land on Mars. How's that working out?

Even with all of these things there is still no way that in 10 years Verizon or at&t could offer unlimited 4G like everyone wants. Sure they could add more towers. Guess what, this cost money and then everyone will bitch about higher bills, because surely the cost will be passed onto customers. Not to mention the same people that bitch about wanting unlimited data also bitch when it's proposed that a tower be put in their area.

••••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

#

maybe if 3 or 4 carriers work in the wireless spectrum, maybe they'll let 3 or 4 wired carriers (that's 1-3 more than already exist in many markets) for there to be competition.
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

rdmiller

Member

Everything is A-OK

As long as Karl's iPhone works today, it's not a problem. Watch him scream 5 years from now when no one can connect in big cities.
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Kansas City, KS

scooper

Member

Unless I see their farmed / stocked spectrum being used

There is no spectrum crunch.

There is no need to crunch the OTA TV spectrum.

Need I go on ?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Unless I see their farmed / stocked spectrum being used

said by scooper:

There is no spectrum crunch.

There is no need to crunch the OTA TV spectrum.

Need I go on ?

OTA will still exist at best they'll get channels 38-51. More likely they'll get 44-51. Looks at it this way channels 44-51 could give both Sprint and T-mobile a nationwide 10X10 MHz 4G swath and they'd very competitive with Verizon and at&t then. Isn't that what everyone wants more competition?