Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless Carriers looking for Elbow Room

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the room-to-breath dept.

pillageplunder writes "Businessweek is reporting on the upcoming Wireless Spectrum Auctions. Over the next two years (Starting in Jan 2005) the FCC will auction off enough spectrum that will more than double the amount currently available. Estimates range anywhere from 50 to 70 billion dollars will be raised by these auctions. Short term, it should improve the quality of Cell-phone, long term, it should open up opportunities for so-called 3G services to take off."

29 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Hams? by tajmorton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And what about the hammers? Will they be elbowed out?

    --
    Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
    1. Re:Hams? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny
      "And what about the hammers? Will they be elbowed out?"

      The ham radio groups where going to stage a protest, but they all got winded when trying to climb the stairs out of their parents basement. Then there was a Babalon Five marathon to watch.

      I kid.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Hams? by r2q2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't believe any of the wireless spectrum is being sold by the FCC that will influence ham radio. Besides the ARRL does have some lobbying power to try to prevent this. They don't mention they are selling off part of the ham radio spectrum. Although most likely any new spectrum for hammers has a small chance of being available to hammers. Most likely they will be elbowed out by the telecom sector.

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
  2. Why should the FCC Sell? by stecoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a pet peeve of mine. Why should the FCC be able to sell spectrum for a region giving basically a monopoly to the bidder. I would much prefer that the FCC leases the spectrum to vendors and the income goes back to the people that rightfully own it (the land owners over the given region - you and me). It isn't the FCC's property to sell and it doesn't force vendors to address issues fast enough.

    1. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Besides that, I have the creeping sensation that this will just be used to further proprietise the US cellular communication system, pushing interoperability even further away. Company X uses expanded protocol Z that uses band ranges Y and so on, making it harder for customers to switch providers.

    2. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by gargonia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. Nevertheless, it doesn't surprise me that this is taking place. The government has had a pretty dismal record for quite some time now regarding stewardship of public resources, and I think this falls under that category. It seems everywhere you look these days there's a "get mine and get out" mentality. It's prevalent in both business and government. I don't know if the people who do this kind of thing don't realize what kind of long term damage they're doing to the country and the economy or if they just don't care. It's a shame either way.

      --

      -- Gargonia
      Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

    3. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've never liked the idea that landowners somehow owning the spectrum over their land. Does that mean that people who own massive tracts of dessert would get large amounts of money from the FCC for satelite TV (even though no one is utilizing that spectrum in those empty tracts of land)? I don't have a cogent argument against it, but the whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

      My problem with the spectrum auction model is it encourages companies to buy up spectrum only for the purpose of keeping it from others companies. If you own the spectrum you should be forced to put it to use within N years by X% of the public in that area, otherwise it reverts back to the FCC.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't the FCC's property to sell.

      Well, I agree and disagree. The FCC being part of the Federal government is ideally a representation of the people. Politics aside, that's democracy for you. When the FCC gets money, it's basically money for our government, and indirectly, us. As for whether they lease or sell, or how exactly the money is used, that's an issue which you can protest through voting and lobbying.

    5. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by the+morgawr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually the land owners don't own the spectrum and never had. That's why the FCC was set up.

      IANAL but my understanding is:

      When someone starts using land they have the rights to everything they need to use it in the manner they want. Tresspass and nusance laws prevent people from interfering with your use of the land. So you can't have someone walk through your yard because it is physically invasive to your property, but you can have someone broadcast radio through the airwaves or fly a plane way overhead because neither of those impeades your use of the property in anyway.

      In all likelyhood radio would have developed a similar set of common laws (this was all getting worked out in the courts). Where the first radio station in a region was allowed to use the band they were broadcasting on and could sue anyone emitting harmful interferance. However Congress became concerned that the legal costs would hold the industry back (there were concerns that radio companies could even make money), so they made the FCC.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    6. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by cmowire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, even better, give the spectrum back to the people, who rightfully own it.

      Like put some spectrum that's solely devoted to a single family of 802.11-like standards set by the IEEE, with no microwaves, cordless phones, etc. to gunk it up.

      Or build allocations around spread-spectrum technologies. Remember, several spread-spectrum networks can exist on the same frequency bands, if done properly, and other networks appear only as noise. If networks are prevented from actively fighting with each other, it's an awfully good way to reward carriers for putting up more access points over a metro area and also to reward more efficent encoding schemes.

      The problem is that the spectrum policy made rough sense when you had no choice but to step on other transmissions. And it's lately been seen as a hidden way for the government to make money. But it's not very good for business, nor is it good for us.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    7. Re:Why should the FCC Sell? by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that mean that people who own massive tracts of dessert

      This prompts the question: Do people have rights to the airspace over their giant brownies?

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  3. 3G... not interested mate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in Europe where we manage to have a single standard and phones work with each other we had 3G auctions a few years back nearly crippling the mobile operators, and still hardly anything on them, no one wants video conversations, you can watch music videos on it, but take up is pretty slack... the government made a killing tho...

  4. learn from other countries by d_strand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    auctioning spectrum is a bad idea. It's better to give it away for free to the companies that promises the best services to it's customers.

    Many countries in europe auctioned off 3G-spectrum a few years ago, and the money involved was insane... many of the "winners" weren't able to build any networks from lack of funds after the crazy fees they payed for the spectrum.

    Some countries instead held "beauty contests" where the companies that promised best area coverage where given spectrum for free (the promises must be kept with the threat of huge fines of course)

  5. They should be renting it out, not selling it. by kenf · · Score: 5, Informative

    The gomment should be renting spectrum, not selling it outright. That way we would have an income stream , not just one payment to squander.

    1. Re:They should be renting it out, not selling it. by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe so, but with renting you have a lot of other problems. Two ways of renting:

      Lease is renewed every X years (like renting an apartment):
      The gov decides to up the rent by 100% this year and you can't pay.
      You do something and the gov decides to evict you or not renew your lease. (think politics)

      Every time you have to re-bid for the same spectrum:
      Congrads, you've built an entire infrasture around your frequencies, but you didn't get the same/any frequencies this time and you are up the creek.

      Probably some others on a similar note out there but that is the general idea.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  6. "3G" refers to... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 4, Funny

    Multiple choice:

    a) the cost of a new wireless device that supports this technology
    b) the average damage to your car when you hit a tree while trying to watch a video on your phone
    c) per-year productivity lost to phone-based instant messaging
    d) your new monthly cellphone bill

    Eric
    JavaScript != Java
  7. Public Space rather than private by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be far more useful to create more public airwaves rather than private and watch what happens. The 900,2.4G, and 5.2G have created a large number of innovations that have been resulted in a large number of products.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  8. Not really accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article isn't very well written. It says that more spectrum will help carriers increase coverage. That isn't true. It would allow some carriers to provide native coverage (as well as sell service) in some new markets, but more licenced spectrum won't increase coverage at all. Spectrum increases capacity. That means less system busies and the ability to let customers use more of the system's capacity for things like data.

    It also suggests that Verizon and Cingular are in the same spectrum position which isn't accurate. In many markets (including mine) Cingular has nearly twice the spectrum of Verizon. This also leads me to think that Verizon will be a bidder in the auctions. Another thing that they don't mention is that the lesser carriers (T-Mobile and Sprint) often have equal or greater amounts of spectrum to Verizon in most markets.

    These auctions allow carriers to increase their capacity in their current markets and to move into markets where they aren't able to offer service because they aren't licenced for it - like how Verizon isn't licenced to operate in Oklahoma City. It won't increase coverage as the article suggests.

  9. Where'd all of this bandwidth come from? by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where exactly did all this bandwidth to just give away come from when the Military is having to override garage door openers to effectively use it's bandwidth?

    --
    I do security
    1. Re:Where'd all of this bandwidth come from? by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

      DTV is allowing the consolidation of all TV stations to about 2/3 the previous number of channels. Previously they needed all the chanels to keep stations from interfeering with each other in adjacent markets. The top 20 or so channels (49-69?) frequencies are no longer going to be in use. They are auctioning off all those frequencies that each channel (6mhz each) used.

      As for the military and the garage door openers, the Military has certain frequencies set aside for its use. By FCC rules other companies can use those frequencies so long as they don't interfere with the person/group who is the legal user of it (the DoD in this case). The garage door manufacturers are knowingly using those frequencies and as such whenever the Military broadcasts in those areas the openers are overwelmed by the power. Several other groups use frequencies like this. Such as car remotes, In home wireless CCTV systems, security systems and others. The Military is probably using standard power for those freqs, its just that the remotes are so much weaker they don't get through.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  10. Coverage obligations! by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets hope they do something like the UK where 3G bidders are obliged to cover 80% of the population by 2007.

    That way citizens of the US get more out of the deal.. as a european living in the us i'm appalled at how frequently i loose reception.

    http://www.cellular-news.com/3G/uk.shtml

  11. 3G isn't going to work... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if they still charge too much for the content.

    I'm talking $3 for a 125x125 background picture, only allow people to keep it for three months and that kind of crap.

    I'm not paying $10 a month for slow internet service to same phone with 125 resolution either.

  12. 3G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... so-called 3G services to take off

    Isn't this what many people said about the last auction that occurred a couple of years back?

    Instead of selling it to private companies, why don't they create more public spectrum? IMHO more has come out of WiFi in an unlicensed spectrum than in most private telco networks. Give more space to WiMAX (802.16) and let people figure out what to do with it. They'll be a lot more creative than the incumbents.

    WiFi proved that the commons doesn't have to be a tragedy. Let's continue this experiment in public use. We don't have to necessarilly make all the available spectrum public; there's room for both private and public use / allocation. Commerical enterprise has been given its chance since the beginning of radio / the FCC. Time for different thinking.

  13. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More brain dead drones walking around with their camera phones saying "Can you see me now?"

  14. Auctions - not a good idea by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like a great way to burden the industry with debt so future investment is minimal.

    What matters most here? revenue for the state or service for consumers?

    --
    Toby

  15. Hams don't really use that portion of the spectrum by VE3ECM · · Score: 3, Informative
    Hams are pretty much fine where they are.

    The portion of the spectrum that they hang out on (the HF bands, ~140 mhz, ~440 mhz) don't have the bandwidth for this stuff...

    The FCC is auction chunks of higher frequency spectrum...
    Hams have little pieces of it here and there (ie 902 mhz, 927 mhz, some 1.2Ghz and 1.6Ghz IIRC)... but the chunks are so small that there's not really much to gain by yanking it.

    Most of this spectrum is in the 800-900 mhz 1.8-2.0 Ghz bands...

    There's a big push behind the scenes to move the public safety bands out of 800 mhz and into the 700's... that frees up a lot of 800 for cell carriers, and eliminates that nasty Nextel interference that a lot of trunked radio systems in metro areas experience.

  16. Re:That's not funny because it's not correct by Satan+Dumpling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Counter example: My dad In his 50's, own business, nice big house, etc.
    See www.adeptrocketry.com
    Electronics nerd, father of two successful computer nerds.
    When I called him yesterday he had just put up a new ham antenna....

  17. There is a build-out requirement by rbrome · · Score: 2, Informative

    My problem with the spectrum auction model is it encourages companies to buy up spectrum only for the purpose of keeping it from others companies. If you own the spectrum you should be forced to put it to use within N years by X% of the public in that area, otherwise it reverts back to the FCC.

    The FCC has exactly those kinds of network build-out requirements in nearly every spectrum license it issues.

  18. Move to a Leasing Model by PingXao · · Score: 2, Informative

    The FCC raises $50 to $70 billion. Once. BFD. They should move to a licensing scheme whereby these spectrums are allocated on a renewable basis. With the U.S. national debt at near back-breaking levels wouldn't it make more sense for the public - who ostensibly owns the "airwaves" - to reap benefits on a recurring basis from giant communications compamnies? As it stands now once the blocks of spectrum are auctioned off they're gone forever. The public no longer "owns" them. The FCC needs to stop giving this precious commodity away.