The Feds Vacate Airwaves

dada21 writes to tell us UPI is reporting that the government is getting ready to spend $936 million to move its radio communication to an obscure segment of the spectrum to make room for next-generation mobile tech. From the article: "'With 90 megahertz of additional spectrum, today's cellular carriers will be tomorrow's next-generation broadband providers,' Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement."

Comments

value

[User 956]

the government is getting ready to spend $936 million to move its radio communication to an obscure segment of the spectrum to make room for next-generation mobile tech.

Yeah, but how many billions is their currently-used chunk of spectrum worth on the open market?

Re:value

[dada21]

I believe TFA says about US$2 billion, with some of it already sold. They also talk about selling more radio stations off, as well.

Re:value

[Anonymous Coward]

More than this, what kind of payoffs did the current telecommunication providers have to give the government to get these plum swaths of spectrum at such a deal. And how about the loss to the government of the infrastructure already in place to use the spectrum being given up. Is this even necessary to get broadband to the consumer? I'm not under the impression it is. I'm under the impression the thing keeping braodband from the consumer is an awareness by the providers that any sort of real competition in the marketplace means profit-margins that can't cover for their losses in other markets. So they have purchased laws to allow them the sole-provider moniker and where there might be competition used collusion to keeps prices high and supply artificially low. How much dark fiber is there?

Re:value

[User 956]

I believe TFA says about US$2 billion, with some of it already sold.

That $2 billion sale they mentioned in TFA was a year ago. The sale of this spectrum won't be until at least 2009; With the rate wireless is growing (and inflation), you're looking at $7-$8 billion, easy.

Re:value

[dada21]

Doh. Go figure, I submit TFA and I didn't even read it correctly :)

Re:value

[timeOday]

Yup, that's a lot of money. Say goodbye to any affordable cellphone or wireless data services on that spectrum.

Re:value

[Anonymous Coward]

"With 90 megahertz of additional spectrum, today's cellular carriers will be tomorrow's next-generation broadband providers," Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement.

It strikes me as both funny and depressing how this slip-of-the-tongue (or intentional?) phrasing came out. Today's bandwidth grantees will be tomorrow's bandwidth grantees.

It's a shame that a public resource like the radio spectrum is "auctioned" off in such huge parcels. Isn't that basically a guarantee that no decentralized applications will appear? Isn't it a guarantee that open development won't happen, and that every successful standard will be successful just because it was adopted by one of the several government-subsidized, megacorporate bandwidth-owners?

Re:value

[Jerry Coffin]

Yeah, but how many billions is their currently-used chunk of spectrum worth on the open market?

It's generally sold at auction so the price isn't known until it's sold. Contrary to the statement elsethread, the $2B number is not an esimate of the value of this spectrum, but an (approximate) number from a previous auction. Unfortunately, the most recent projection I've found from the congressional budget office is quite old, but here is a more recent analysis from a decidedly interested (though hardly impartial) party.

Re:value

[Asm-Coder]

Basiclly, yes.

But there are two possible solutions.
A) an organization or individual purchuses portions of the spectrum and either donates or premites access to the spectrum, or
B) Everyone pesters their congressmen with letters begging for an open free-use area on the spectrum.

I don't know, but there is the remote chance of one or the other happening.

P.S. If anyone has more information on this please post, so everyone can get in on it.

Re:value

[User 956]

B) Everyone pesters their congressmen with letters begging for an open free-use area on the spectrum.

We already have that. That's why there are so many unregulated 900Mhz, 2.4Ghz, and 5Ghz wireless devices (like 802.11, cordless phones, and the like).

Re:value

[kesuki]

Actually i think the business model is more like, you the supscriber pay an extra $20 a month for the ability to sit through a 2-minute (non skipable) ad segment to watch 15 minutes of 'broadcast' TV.

Since tivo has been killing the 'captive audience' ad models, the wireless carriers are counting on getting a rather hefty share of the 20-40 bn/year advertising budget of major corperations... the plus side, is that the cell carriers knowing a bunch of personal information about you (sex, age, ethnicity, income) allows those non-skippable ads to be Targeted to Specific demographics more easily than television and internet ads can be.

so really, if enough people use this service the cell phone companies could concievably break even on year 1. allowing them to drop the subscription price (perhaps even giving the service for free) some providers might decide to offer the service 'free' from the get go in the hopes of making enough ad revenue to cover the cost of buying the spectrum/rolling out the towers etc.

have you not seen all the television ads for this service already? (without the new bandwith) they're targeting football fans right now, hoping that they're willing to pay extra to 'not miss the game, when the wife sends them out shopping' with the added bandwith they'd be able to offer much more content, and much more ads to cover the cost of not charging for 'downloading' the content.

it could work out the way the cell companies hope it will, not to mention the fact that right now I'D KILL for Real broadband cellular internet where i live right now (using satelite paying $100 a month now) if it was $100 a month (or less) and had at least DSL speed(256kbit or better), with dsl style bandwith caps(5gbit/month or higher)...

It's a good start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only they would vacate the country...

Re:It's a good start.

[User 956]

Now if only they would vacate the country...

they're working on that one. Unfortunately, it will probably be after they've spent all the money.

Re:It's a good start.

[dada21]

This is true -- and why I've moved entirely to a personal gold standard for currency.

In the past 15 years, they had numerous ways to spend -- direct taxes, indirect taxes, fake social security lockboxes and the worst -- currency inflation. Now that China, Russia and the Middle East are losing faith in the US dollar, they won't be able to inflate as much, right? Wrong. In March 2006, our government has decided to stop reporting the M3 Money Supply figures -- the figures that tell the world how much counterfeit money the central bank prints.

And they think this will make the dollar more stable?

Re:It's a good start.

[m50d]

And they think this will make the dollar more stable?

Yes. This will mean noone knows that they're stepping up production to keep the US on top because the value of the dollar is basically collapsing. As long as noone notices it's about to collapse, it doesn't collapse. That's how finance works.

Re:It's a good start.

[Belseth]

Come on, get in the spirit of the madness. For the cost of printing six trillion in hundreds we can be out of debt. If we print a couple of trillion extra we can go on a spending spree. It's the " I can't be broke I got more checks" theory of economics.

Re:It's a good start.

[Anonymous Coward]

The central bank printing counterfeit.... right. That's a stupendous thought.

Re:It's a good start.

[God'sDuck]

For the cost of printing six trillion in hundreds we can be out of debt.

actually...that would work. of course, the resulting currency devaluation would equal an approximately $20,000 per-person tax...and you might need more than 6 trill if the currency starts plummeting before you're done shelling out the cash. but it would work.

Re:It's a good start.

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

This is true -- and why I've moved entirely to a personal gold standard for currency.

Would someone please explain the gold standard to me? I understand the need for non-fiat currency that has equal value as currency as it would as material, but why gold? It's not a fixed quantity. IIRC one of the reasons for the fall of 1600s Spain was that the colonies discovered gold, thereby reducing the value of their gold-standard currency.

In Atlas Shrugged, the banker owns a gold deposit. Is it just a coincidence that there's gold nearby Galt's Gulch? And what's there to prevent him from refusing to mine gold, or mining more gold, or letting a competitor find gold elsewhere?

Re:It's a good start.

[dada21]

Actually, go read the link I provided at http://www.mises.org/money.asp it explains the need for NO currency standard. Money can exist in a non-regulated free market system and would likely lead to not only more wealth for the poor, but more stable wealth for everyone.

I prefer gold as my standard because it has generally held its value over time -- thousands of years actually. The only time gold really spiked and fell was when we saw large manipulations or large discovering. Over time, though, the population growth tends to offset any gold discoveries (which historically are rare). Today gold is valued at over US$500 per ounce but it costs less than US$70 per ounce to extract from a mine -- that's how weak gold discoveries are in regards to the amount of gold in existence.

Gold is not the only store of wealth, it is just harder to manipulate. I blog about the gold manipulations (I used to have a gold bug newsletter up to about 6 months ago and am trying to rebuild my gold readers in blog form) and it is really interesting to see how nothing is sacred, but at least gold is stable.

When you read about fiat currency and the manipulations that happen in that market, you'll definitely want to look at non-US dollar backed investments. I'm the least doomy-and-gloomy of all gold bugs, I think, but I definitely see a call for some caution, especially if all your money is in US currency. Our armies might be the most powerful, but the day will come when they won't have the financing needed to keep them protecting our dollar.

Re:It's a good start.

[Guppy06]

"And they think this will make the dollar more stable?"

The stability of the value of gold depends on fusion and spaceflight continuing to be expensive. Physicists are already using supercolliders to create gold in the laboratory and the presence of gold in the asteroid belt is fairly well known, it's only a matter of time for the expense of the technology to come down, and then you'll be stuck with a bunch of shiney yellow paperweights.

(It may seem farfetched now, but so were manmade diamonds once.)

You also seem to be forgetting about how a precious metal standard puts the value of the currency into the hands of the individuals who are able to horde enough of the stuff (inflate the value of gold by keeping it, lower it by selling/spending it, whichever was to your advantage at the time). In order to protect the gold-based dollar from rampant inflation or deflation, the US government needed to hold on to incredibly large gold reserves (such as the one that was famously kept at Fort Knox) as well as implement laws about how much gold an individual could own (which weren't repealed until the Ford adminstration). If anything, you should be happier with paper money: it's easier to smuggle gold in from out of the country than to counterfeit greenbacks (protecting the value of your money from hostile intent) and there are no regulations about how many paper dollars you can stuff into your mattress.

Re:It's a good start.

[Yonder Way]

"This is true -- and why I've moved entirely to a personal gold standard for currency."

Yeah I'm sure that works really well at the gas station.

Re:It's a good start.

[FunFactor100]

"and there are no regulations about how many paper dollars you can stuff into your mattress"

However the authorities tend to view people with too many paper dollars in their possession as criminals.

Re:It's a good start.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how long do you think that will last? I'm sure it will buy them some time, but it will be noticed.

Re:It's a good start.

[chihowa]

Among other factors, the Treasury cited increased spending for rebuilding Gulf Coast areas hit hard by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what pushed us over the top. You know that's the biggest non-regular bit of government spending this year! </sarcasm>

Re:It's a good start.

[dada21]

Yeah I'm sure that works really well at the gas station.

You'd be surprised. Both my local (Indian-owned) gas stations do -- at a 9% discount, too.

Restaurants, grocers, consumer goods -- I've found dozens near me and around the country that accept bullion. Most offer a nice discount, too.

Re:It's a good start.

[Ullric]

March 2006 is'nt here yet ?

Re:It's a good start.

[Mercano]

But now everyone knows. Or, at least, everyone who reads slashdot. Those who don't probably don't matter anyway.

/me goes back to dreaming

Re:It's a good start.

[m50d]

Until someone else is appointed to their positions, they're hoping.

Re:It's a good start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Great!
The country is being run by Texan trailer-trash.

"The cheque is in the mail"

Re:It's a good start.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they think this will make the dollar more stable?

Ha! If the US government wanted a stable currency, then every last cent would be backed by something of actual value, for example gold. You know, like it used to be before "we" decided that debt and inflation are legitimate tools for centrally managing an economy. Hell, that was before "we" decided that an economy needed to be centrally managed at all.

Re:It's a good start.

[da]

Would someone please explain the gold standard to me?

I've also wondered this myself on many occassions. I have to say, I spent a couple of hours reading the link in dada21's post, and I found it very interesting, crystalising my thoughts for me very well. At the bottom of page 12 of the pdf version, I found the following:

Through the centuries, two commodities, gold and silver, have emerged as money in the free competition of the market, and have displaced the other commodities. Both are uniquely marketable, are in great demand as ornaments, and excel in [other] qualities. In recent times, silver, being relatively more abundant than gold, has been found more useful for smaller exchanges, while gold is more useful for larger transactions. At any rate, the important thing is that whatever the reason, the free market has found gold and silver to be the most efficient moneys.

I'm guessing that some of those other qualities include ductility, maleability, inertness and so on, but what would I know, my domain of knowledge is hardware and software, not materials science ;). HTH...

eBay

[amazon10x]

sounds to me like they need to auction each of those megahertz on eBay! http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/

Why Sell It?

[Bellum Aeternus]

Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum? Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use? The now famous WiFi uses public spectrum and is easily the most famous radio - except perhaps radio itself.

Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.

Re:Why Sell It?

[dada21]

I agree with you. I blogged about it today, before I submitted the article to slashdot. I'd love to see a bigger experiment from the FCC on privatizing and anarchizing (sp?) airwaves to see how it works.

You'll likely see some responses here from people on how their neighbor's microwave screws with their WiFi, but I run and maintain 25 WiFi networks for friends and family and we don't have a problem with a single network. I even offer my WiFi connection free to all my neighbors and they don't even call with tech support questions.

Re:Why Sell It?

[Chris Burke]

Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum?

Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.


Question, meet Answer.

Re:Why Sell It?

[IAAP]

Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use? Where ?

How would you try convincing folks who are allocated their spectrum to give some of there's up? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you mean?

Re:Why Sell It?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may anwser question:

The cost of moving to a new radio frequency will be paid for with money raised through the spectrum auction. The last major spectrum sale raised more than $2 billion.

From TFA

Also, when has the government ever given away anything of value? Especially considering said airwaves will very likely be used for commercial use, I can't blame them for trying to make some money off of this, in addition to money put towards moving to a new radio frequency.

I have a better question: Why sell it? Are these new radio frequencies better? If so, how so?

Re:Why Sell It?

[timeOday]

You'll likely see some responses here from people on how their neighbor's microwave screws with their WiFi

I'd much rather use the spectrum with a chance of inteference than be banned from it entirely.

Re:Why Sell It?

[morgan_greywolf]

I agree with you. I blogged [blogspot.com] about it today, before I submitted the article to slashdot. I'd love to see a bigger experiment from the FCC on privatizing and anarchizing (sp?) airwaves to see how it works.

I think the end result would be almost a total abandonment of a large part of the spectrum by commercial companies ... you'd see radio being used mostly by hobbyists and individuals...

Or maybe that's what you had in mind... ;)

Re:Why Sell It?

[timeOday]

I think the end result would be almost a total abandonment of a large part of the spectrum by commercial companies ... you'd see radio being used mostly by hobbyists and individuals...

Why on earth do you think so?

Re:Why Sell It?

[zymano]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum

Re:Why Sell It?

[kbielefe]

WiFi does not use "public spectrum." It falls under part 15 rules and therefore uses spectrum that is allocated to licensed users, at extremely low power, with the understanding that it must not cause interference and must accept any interference. In other words, your WiFi router has no more right to transmit on that channel than your neighbor's microwave oven has.

As a licensed user of several of the WiFi channels I can transmit at 1500 watts over an entire city, if necessary to establish communication, and can interfere with any unlicensed WiFi routers on my channel with impunity. Not only that, if any of those routers are interfering with my signal, they are legally required to shut down or at least change channel.

Think that's unfair? The designers of WiFi were aware of those requirements when they first selected the frequencies. Luckily for all you unlicensed users of WiFi, most of us hams are nice guys who like WiFi for our own networks, and are excited about the availability of cheap hardware for using that part of the spectrum.

Re:Why Sell It?

[adrianmonk]

Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use? The now famous WiFi uses public spectrum and is easily the most famous radio - except perhaps radio itself.

AM and FM radio are more well-known than WiFi, but I think WiFi is also behind two other very famous uses of the spectrum: television, and cell phones. Also, in the general population, I would think Citizens' Band radio and Police / Fire / EMS radio are pretty well-known uses. Also, GPS is pretty famous.

Re:Why Sell It?

[busman]

FTA

The trade group, the Telecommunications Industry Association, had lobbied for the law and the follow-up report and issued a positive statement regarding the nearly $1 billion cost estimate released by the government this week. "Proceeds of commercial spectrum auctions to fund the relocation costs of federal incumbents helps all segments of the wireless industry, creating a win-win situation for both government and industry."

When you hear a lobby/trade group say it's a win-win situation you know you will be screwed someway in the deal!

Re:Why Sell It?

[Dun Malg]

I think the end result would be almost a total abandonment of a large part of the spectrum by commercial companies ... you'd see radio being used mostly by hobbyists and individuals...

Yeah, because radio-based features are just minor, superfluous add-ons to most commercial products and services that use them, like cell phones, pagers, commercial 2-way radio dispatch, etc.

Man, you must be on crack.

Re:Why Sell It?

[CRC'99]

WiFi does not use "public spectrum." It falls under part 15 rules and therefore uses spectrum that is allocated to licensed users, at extremely low power, with the understanding that it must not cause interference and must accept any interference. In other words, your WiFi router has no more right to transmit on that channel than your neighbor's microwave oven has.

Actually, it's under a class license, which means the devices themselves need to pass certification to be operated in that band. It is known widely as public spectrum because it is the device that is certified for mass production that anyone can go and buy.

As a licensed user of several of the WiFi channels I can transmit at 1500 watts over an entire city, if necessary to establish communication, and can interfere with any unlicensed WiFi routers on my channel with impunity. Not only that, if any of those routers are interfering with my signal, they are legally required to shut down or at least change channel.

Wrong. I think you'll find that in that part of the band, the limit is MUCH less than 1500 watts. I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission. I do believe that the 2.4Ghz section of spectrum is much lower due to the potential risks at that particular band. Your request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area would be denied. They are also not legally required to shut down their service. You can just ask nicely. You have just as much responsibility to not cause interference as they do.

Think that's unfair? The designers of WiFi were aware of those requirements when they first selected the frequencies. Luckily for all you unlicensed users of WiFi, most of us hams are nice guys who like WiFi for our own networks, and are excited about the availability of cheap hardware for using that part of the spectrum.

Wow. Nice to know you like to blow you're own trumpet and I love the sound of breaking a power trip. WiFi users are not required to be licensed - the equipment is as mentioned earlier. Don't make it sound like you're doing people a favour here - all I see is a snobby HAM operator blowing his horn.

Re:Why Sell It?

[isdnip]

The base article (from UPI) is about what you'd expect from the Moonies, who bought the UPI brand in bankruptcy. It's a day late and an ounce of their precious gold short. So let's clarify what's going on.

Cellular and other commercial wireless telecommunications is all based on recycled spectrum. The original cellular 800 MHz licenses were taken from TV channels 70-83, which were deleted from broadcasting some years ago. PCS 1800 MHz licenses were largely taken away from fixed terrestrial microwave systems, used by many types of utilities -- and the licensees had to pay to relocate the utilities. In rural areas, there are still a lot of microwave systems on PCS frequencies. (I actually downloaded the FCC microwave license database and mapped those frequencies in a GIS program, just to see. Alas, while it's easy with commercial MS Access and MapInfo, the open source answer would probably be Postgresql and GRASS, which are much less user-friendly.)

The frequencies in question (1700/2100 MHz) were allocated about two years ago to the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). That's a new set of auctioned licenses which, like PCS, could be used for "3G" services, though American rules do not dictate how auctioned frequencies actually are used. AWS frequencies are being transferred from government to civilian use by an Act of Congress a few years ago, which ordered the government to give up a little of its spectrum. Congress also wants auctions, because it maximizes federal revenue -- they actually anticipate auction revenues in the federal budget and use them as part of general revenues.

So in June's auction, we're likely to see Verizon Wireless, Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint and Alltel bid as usual. A few small bidders will pop up here and there. The big-market bidding will be defensive, mostly VZW and Cingular bidding up the spectrum in order to keep anyone else from using it to compete with them. If "3G" data services are offered, they'll probably be the usual "Wireless Web" walled gardens, or at best heavily-restricted data services like VZW's Broadband Access (with more Thou Shalt Nots than the King James Version).

Re:Why Sell It?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission.

It would be nice if you bothered to read Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 97) before you start speculating on something you obviously know too little about.

WiFi users are not required to be licensed

The first author didn't state or imply that they did. He's licensed, and so am I (and have been for 35+ years), and we know that WiFi users don't need to be.

the equipment is as mentioned earlier

Yes, BUT the user is REQUIRED to alleviate any interference to LICENSED services, which in this case is the Amateur Radio Service. And, incidentally, the Amateur Radio operates in that band as a secondary user, and must defer to the Government Radiolocation Service. So, Wi-Fi can't interfere with hams or government radars or, for that matter, anyone else.

Don't make it sound like you're doing people a favour here

The favour that we hams are doing for the general population is tolerating a large amount of injected noise in a part of the spectrum that could be used for long-haul links (using wide-band FSK, PSK or other modulation techniques not involving spread-spectrum), ATV (Amateur Television) which has been proven to be of great value to various emergency services (e.g. fire, police, search and rescue, etc.), links between voice repeaters. We even use part of the band for satellite downlinks; fortunately that small segment is not available to WiFi, but desensitization from nearby WiFi installations that exceed the allowed ERP on adjacent frequencies cause problems to the amateur community. On top of that, I'm sure that a lot of the engineers who designed Wi-Fi are licensed amateurs and are very well aware of the situation.

Oh, and BTW, we're limited to 100W when using spread spectrum, AND when we use spread spectrum, we're limited to only a few spreading sequences and they are different from Part 15 equipment. So, the onus is on us to somehow concoct our own equipment ("home-brew") since we can't just take a Part 15 SS transmitter and throw an amp on it. However, for other emissions, neither he nor I have to "request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area" - we're allowed to already under Part 97 (subject to the general overall requirement of using only enough power needed to facilitate communications).

So, take a gander at http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/rules -regs.html, compare Parts 15 and 97, and perhaps then you'll understand the discussion.

Re:Why Sell It?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm broadcasting at 1500 watts on that band right now. You see, I am opening and closing my microwave oven door in a pattern that makes a message using morse code. Can you hear me now?

Re:Why Sell It?

[kbielefe]

There you go, ruining my evening by making me actually look up references to refute your unresearched claims.

Here is the FCC application for my 802.11b/g wireless router. At the bottom, it clearly states that it operates under FCC rule parts 15c, which indeed requires FCC certification of the device and not the user, but according to Title 47, part 15.5, "shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment."

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of that section, which confirms what I originally stated about interference to licensed users. Licensed users of the frequency are only responsible to not cause interference to other licensed users of that frequency, just like a broadcast radio station doesn't have to care if he interferes with those little FM transmitters that people plug their ipods into so they can listen on their car radio. An amateur radio license is no less valid than the license for your local top 40 radio station. And the authority to operate that little FM transmitter is the same authority for wi-fi routers and microwave ovens, with the same FCC certification requirements.

While technically a request to shut down must come from the FCC and a licensed user can only "ask nicely", just like enforcing the speed limit must come from a law enforcement officer, the fact is that the law is on the side of the licensed user.

Contrast this with the CB and family radio services, for example, which have frequencies specifically set aside for sole use by unlicensed users, with strict equipment specifications. That is what I would consider public spectrum.

There is nothing in section 97.313 that limits the power output to less than 1500 W in that band. However, I concede that there are other requirements for RF exposure, a "minimum necessary power" requirement, and other technical issues that probably limit it practically to 100 W or so. There are probably further restrictions somewhere in the code where unattended operation is concerned. A license is enough permission to use those bands. The only additional requirement needed to run 1500 W of power is a routine environmental evaluation which proves that humans won't be over-exposed (required for transmissions over 250 Watts in that band). The process of performing such an evaluation is a subject of the extra class amateur radio license exam. However, if it is shown that 1500 W was used where 1 W would have been sufficient, the licensee is subject to heavy fines, seizure of his equipment, and forfeiture of his license.

I'm not trumpeting my own horn or going on a power trip, just clearing up a common misconception that wi-fi frequencies are somehow reserved for wi-fi, and trying to present an interesting and extreme counter example. You can argue that wi-fi has become so ubiquitous that it deserves some protection from interference, and I would agree with you, but the current law makes no such guarantee, and it is indeed only through the voluntary cooperation of legitimate licensees of that spectrum (hams aren't the only ones) that lawful interference with wi-fi isn't widespread.

I apologize if I came off snobby, but consider that someone who has passed three increasingly difficult exams dealing with FCC regulations, and has years of experience and training in building and operating radio equipment in compliance with those regulations, has earned the right to speak with some authority on the subject. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but you might want to actually back it up with fact the next time you think you're breaking a power trip.

Re:Why Sell It?

[Bagazip]

Actually, it's under a class license, which means the devices themselves need to pass certification to be operated in that band.

Certification is a bit of a joke. A manufacturer just supplies test data to the FCC for a certification and states that their device complies with the FCC technical standards. It's mainly a sort of "honor system" these days. If a problem developed with a certain product, maybe the FCC would drag it in for testing. But these days the FCC usually just reviews the info and test data given to it by the manufacturer of the device and rubber stamps it "OK".

I think you'll find that in that part of the band, the limit is MUCH less than 1500 watts. I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission. I do believe that the 2.4Ghz section of spectrum is much lower due to the potential risks at that particular band. Your request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area would be denied.

You're wrong on that point. The 1500 watt limit is allowed without special permission. The 200 watt limit you are remembering has nothing to do with 2.4GHz in most of the country.

See: Rule Governing Transmitter Power

They are also not legally required to shut down their service. You can just ask nicely. You have just as much responsibility to not cause interference as they do.

It is true that a Part 15 user does not have to shut down unless requested to do so by a Commission (FCC) representative. But a "ham radio operator vs. Part 15 device" situation puts the Part 15 device on the losing end, legally. The only time a ham radio operator would "have just as much responsibility to not cause interference" is if the ham operator operated with an intent to jam the Part 15 device. Otherwise, if your Part 15 device gets blown off the airwaves by a legal ham radio signal (or by any other licensed signal for that matter), tough cookies.

Re:Why Sell It?

[evilviper]

Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum?

Without that money as an incentive, they wouldn't be spending millions upon millions of dollars switching frequency in the first place.

Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use?

Maybe because the currently available public-use bands are just stagnating? The CB frequencies are really wide-open, and still practically nobody is using them. With newer radio technologies, those frequencies could be used for quite fast networks, that could span many miles (through building, around mountains, etc). They can even be skipped off the ionosphere for ranges in the hendreds of miles.

Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.

Spectrum isn't infinitely valuable. These rich companies may pay more for the spectrum than they ever make back on their investment. Otherwise, everyone would be buying.

I also can't see how this will reduce innovation at all. There's nothing entirely unique about this spectrum, so others will just have to "innovate" with frequencies that are higher/lower than this, and will have the same end effect.

Re:Why Sell It?

[AK Marc]

AM and FM radio are more well-known than WiFi, but I think WiFi is also behind two other very famous uses of the spectrum: television, and cell phones. Also, in the general population, I would think Citizens' Band radio and Police / Fire / EMS radio are pretty well-known uses. Also, GPS is pretty famous.

Ok, so how many people know what freqency Channel 21 is broadcast at? Now compare that to how many people know what frequency WiFi is transmitted at. How about cell phones? There are many different frequencies, and very few people know any of them. Aside from those named with their frequency (1080 AM and 90.1 FM), it is by far the most famous part of the radio spectrum, even if that doesn't mean it is the most famous use of the spectrum. But For WiFi, I think more people will be able to correctly name the most common frequency used than name the frequencies used by any AM or FM stations, as people will not know a kHz from a Mhz for radio stations.

Re:Why Sell It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all together: Meet big government and it's natural result, corruption.

Re:Why Sell It?

[trentblase]

Yeah, ok off the top of your head what frequency is WiFi transmitted at? Go ahead and give me the center of any channel you choose.

Industry Lobbied for it?

[IAAP]

The trade group, the Telecommunications Industry Association, had lobbied for the law and the follow-up report and issued a positive statement regarding the nearly $1 billion cost estimate released by the government this week.

So, considering the track record of lobbyist and Congress, how many of you re highly skeptical that the people of th US will be getting their money's worth when the spectrums are auctioned? I know I am.

Misleading article

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article, [...] Most of the work should be completed by 2009, [...].

Tomorrow and three years seems a little far off.

IANANA (I Am Not A Network Administrator), but would an additional 90MHz to the spectrum really make the difference between 0.5KB/s and >100KB/sec?

And why is this in Politics? Hardware, or even IT, would be more proper.

Re:Misleading article

[ivan256]

That depends... How much money are you willing to part with? Per month, I mean.

Re:Misleading article

[LordEd]

would an additional 90MHz to the spectrum really make the difference between 0.5KB/s and >100KB/sec?

Ok, making some random guesses here, but looking at GSM, we have a total of 50 MHz of bandwidth (25 up, 25 down). Each channel is 200khz wide and has a transfer rate of 271 kbit. If the bandwidth is combined together, it totals to 140 MHz of bandwidth. Keeping the same number of channels, we now have an increase of channel size by 280%. That would bring bandwidth to 758 kbit/sec (1.5 total up and down). If we only increase the down pipe, then those channels increase by 460%, making the download speed 1.24 Mbit.

9/11 radio problems not solved?

[asadodetira]

This move might be another step in the wrong direction. If i'm not mistaken in a NPR radio show an expert said that some current commercial frequencies would be extremely useful for emergency responders since they can reach deeper inside buildings. They attributed the misuse of airwaves to lobby of big media groups. Apparently a lot of the rescue radio communication problems detected after 9/11 have not been solved, changes can be quickly made when there's a commercial reason.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[LWATCDR]

I read that Sprint/NexTel is selling the IDEN network that Nextel uses to the government. The PPT "walkie talkie" system plus the nation wide network should work pretty well for "first" responders. How well does it work in buildings? I have no idea. I do know that Sprint got a nice chunk of spectrum in WiMax range in exchange for the IDEN network.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[wfberg]

This move might be another step in the wrong direction. If i'm not mistaken in a NPR radio show an expert said that some current commercial frequencies would be extremely useful for emergency responders since they can reach deeper inside buildings.

The article mentions this is about the 1710- to 1755-MHz band. This is a slightly lower frequency than current GSM-1900 or CDMA-2000 handsets use. As such, I can tell you it doesn't reach too far into buildings. Expect bad or no coverage in the basement, or in elevators.

For emergency services, there are a lot more attractive pieces of spectrum than this one.

In fact, emergency services in The Netherlands are finding this out just now, as they're trying to implement c2000, better known as TETRA. TETRA operates in the 380-383 MHz or 390-393 MHz range, yet these are still high enough frequencies to neccesitate a dense network of repeaters, and still it doesn't penetrate too far into buildings, which is of great concern to e.g. firefighters. Of course, since it's already cost billions to partially implement (so far), they can hardly call the whole thing off.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[asadodetira]

Another factor they mentioned is the power requirement. It's preferrable to use bands that can transmit farther/deeper using less power because some equipment quickly eats up batteries. (In many cases they use non-removable rechargeable packs)

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[mlynx]

The NexTel bands suck inside buildings. Our facilities team uses them and if we stood in the halways of our old building you couldn't get a signal. Another example is that in my current building, I have an office with a southern facing window (points directly at the closest nextel tower btw), if I am seated at the back of the office, 25 feet from the window, I don't get any of my phone calls or direct connects.

I certainly wouldn't expect the IDEN network to work well for first responders, and I would definitely not want my life dependant on the current network.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[josecanuc]

The problem of emergency responder and public safety radio system (non)interoperability grows out of the history of growth of the systems.

In the beginning, each agency had one or a few dedicated frequencies for communcation. The fire department might have 3 channels labeled "Primary", "Secondary", and "Tactical". Each of those would correspond to a pair of frequencies known as a "repeater pair". One frequency is the "input" to the repeater, and the other, the "output". In "idle", each radio is listening to the "output" frequency. When a fireman transmits on the radio, it transmits on the "input". The repeater listens to the input constantly. When it senses someone transmitting on the input frequency, it fires up it's transmitter on the output frequency and passes the audio from the input receiver to the output transmitter.

(Not much has changed since then)

Each agency (police, fire, waste, roads & bridges, etc.) of a city, plus county(parish), state, and federal agengies was in direct administrative control over their frequencies (an therefore channels). The fire department would apply with the FCC for a license for 3 repeater pairs, and the FCC would say, you can use pairs X, Y, and Z at no more than P Watts of power. The FCC determined this by ensuring that pairs X, Y, and Z were not used elsewhere in a geographical proximity that would likely be breached by a transmitter at the fire department's location based on RF propogation models at the given frequencies and terrain.

Now, in a bigger sense, the FCC also defined the allocation of the RF spectrum for the entire radio electromagnetic radation spectrum. Not on an individual basis, but on a functional basis. Like, 150MHz - 158MHz is allocated for public safety use, and therefore frequency pairs in that "band" would be available for individual licensing to any public safety agency (police, fire, EMS, etc.) Great amounts of spectrum are currently allocated for "federal" use. Note that not all RF use is for voice communication. Some is set aside for radioastronomy: no licenses are given to allow transmitting there, so radioastronomers can be certain that if they listen in that band, there will be less human interference than if they just picked any arbitrary frequency band to monitor.

As the technology improved and became cheaper, it became possible to utilize higher and higher frequencies. As such, whenever a band seemed "crowded", and the FCC opened up a higher band for the same purpose, it opened up a wider band. Wider bands means the same number of available channelized frequencies in the pool could be wider, and therefore carry better sound quality. Alternatively, the same quality could result with a higher count of "channels" in a band.

Public safety and city maintenance radio systems used to operate around 30MHz and 50MHz (about 10meter and 6meter wavelenths). Those gave good range -- the radio energy from the repeater and mobile radios was not attenuated by the atmosphere too much. As the frequency increases, though, the attenuation (lessening) of the signal strength by the various components of the air increases. At the same time, there is less "other" RF energy floating around from such things as the sun and lightning in storms, so the end result was to have slightly increased power requirements on transmitters and vastly increased voice quality and vastly increased equipment maintainability. Much of RF engineering has to do with the real wavelength, so as you go shorter in wavelenth, some of your filtering hardware can get smaller and more compact.

Eventually, every little city had a dozen or so frequencies allocated to various agencies within. It was a very inefficient use of the scarce resource of RF spectrum. If the fire department of Podunk, WV had 3 frequencies allocated to it, no other agency within, say, 100 miles could be allocated those frequencies. And you have to realize also that an FM-modulated voice signal has a real "bandwidth", and so you had to space out the "channels" of available frequenc

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[josecanuc]

The iDEN/Nextel stuff was a kind of "cleaning up" of the spectrul allocation. Nextel's long history meant that it had a lot of little slices of allocations throughout the nation, which happened to be kind of mixed in with cellular stuff. (The cellular came later, and just worked around the Nextel stuff on a regional basis.)

Rather than keep up the "which frequencies do we have to not use because of Nextel in THIS city?" nonsense, and because the cellular and iDEN operators were not leaving much space between their uses, meant there was potential for interference.

So Nextel, in cooperation/coercion with the FCC traded it's little slices around the nation for a contiguous slice elswhere, and then the FCC arranged to trade that to the cellular providers for some cash.

Details in the above story may not be correct, but that what I understand of the situation.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[LWATCDR]

Here is the story I saw. http://phone.ioerror.us/2005/10/sprint-nextel-sell s-iden-network-to-us-military How true it is I have no idea.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[josecanuc]

Okay. I thought what you heard on NPR might have been the "rebanding" thing. And I think I was also wrong -- iDEN isn't mixed in with cellular, it's mixed in with public-safety (fire, police) frequencies.

The NPR story you linked to is a result of the Sprint/Nextel merger and the fact that rather than maintain two different cellular technologies (iDEN, CDMA), Sprint/Nextel decided to eventually pick one -- and when they get all the civilian users off of iDEN by making them buy new handsets, they can then sell iDEN handsets only to federal users who have their own set of needs that are difficult to meet with a mixed-use network.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[castoridae]

The main frequencies being used/considered in public safety (in the US) are the 800-900MHz range (for voice communications, and low-bandwidth high-range/high-penetration data) and the 4.9GHz for wifi (some may use the "standard" wifi frequency at 2.4GHz, for the COTS equipment, dual public use, or lower density of repeaters necessary, but they find the idea of having their own dedicated frequency very attractive).

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[LWATCDR]

Actually it seems like Sprint is planing on moving to a WiMax network. I have to wonder if this will be part of the phone or a separate data service?
I really like my new Samsung A900 CDMA phone and would love a WiMax version but only if it is the same size and doesn't have a shorter battery life.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[evilviper]

TETRA operates in the 380-383 MHz or 390-393 MHz range, yet these are still high enough frequencies to neccesitate a dense network of repeaters, and still it doesn't penetrate too far into buildings, which is of great concern to e.g. firefighters. Of course, since it's already cost billions to partially implement (so far), they can hardly call the whole thing off.

What? You can't possibly convince me they didn't already KNOW the limitations of those frequencies long before they even designed the system. The propogation of different frequencies of radio signals has been extremely well-known for a very, very long time, so acting like they were surprised at how poorly ~400MHz penetrates buildings (only after spending billions on the system) is completely crazy.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[accessdeniednsp]

Sprint/Nextel is keeping iDEN for the Direct Connect service, while migrating the voice portion over to CDMA. The data services are likely to bounce to the horrific EV-DO mess, however. iDEN for data works very very well since it's built into the protocol. Oh well.

But that's the Direct Connect and voice migration path. They aren't idiots in those board rooms. They know that iDEN is *the* way to go for PTT service. I'll jump onboard with voice over CDMA despite it's shortcomings.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in order to wipe out trunked radio all we need to do is jam the control channel... hahaha... You should have gotten the digital TETRA system instead, Amerikaners.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[LWATCDR]

I don't get the whole PTT thing. I just hit the button on my bluetooth headset and say call wife.
For me I don't see the advantage.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[dmccarty]

IMO that was one of the most informative posts ever written on Slashdot. Great information, thanks.

(It's posts like these that almost make me like the place again. ;-)

(BTW, you might consider adding your info to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_during_ the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks Or, if you're interested in me piecing the relevant parts into the article, please let me know. It would be nice to have the information not scroll off /.'s horizon.)

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[josecanuc]

Do with it what you like. It's what I understand, but I can't guarantee 100% accuracy.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure whether you oversimplified your presentation of trunked radio. Maybe you should flesh that out because as someone else remarked, trunked radio seems to be particularily vulnerable to denial of service and impersonation by attacking the control channel. If there are any countermeasures like encryption and channel hopping then expound on that. Also, as that individual pointed out the TETRA digital radio service, it would be interesting to compare that to the american system.

Re:9/11 radio problems not solved?

[wfberg]

What? You can't possibly convince me they didn't already KNOW the limitations of those frequencies long before they even designed the system. The propogation of different frequencies of radio signals has been extremely well-known for a very, very long time, so acting like they were surprised at how poorly ~400MHz penetrates buildings (only after spending billions on the system) is completely crazy.

That's politics. They were either suckered into it, or on the take.

Of course the proposed solution is to make it compulsory for owners of "dense" buildings to install repeaters on their own costs. Seeing as they'd have to buy those from the same TETRA manufacturers that pushed the whole system in the first place, I'd say; on the take.

what feds??

[Anonymous Coward]

IN THE USA, the feds have....

Re:what feds??

[Anonymous Coward]

... forgotten him

Great.

[Dharh]

How much more of the spectrum are they going to give away to proprietary companies? The least they could do is _sell_ it. Sick and tired of government mismanaging the spectrum.

Not with their greed

[Generic Guy]

today's cellular carriers will be tomorrow's next-generation broadband providers

No they won't. With the greed and unwillingness to give customers what they really want the cell carriers shown already that they'll overprice, meter, and "extra-cost" everything. No thanks.

Re:Not with their greed

[timeOday]

With the greed and unwillingness to give customers what they really want the cell carriers shown already that they'll overprice, meter, and "extra-cost" everything.

And paying $billions up-front for spectrum gives them the perfect reason/excuse to do so.

This is wonderful news

[hellfire]

Now that 90 Mhz of spectrum which wasn't interfering with anything anyway is no longer interfering with the cell phone spectrum which wasn't being interfered with, perhaps we can write more laws reducing interference in things previously not interfered with? Oh wait... we already have the PATRIOT act.

Non-standard uplink frequency! Grr!

[O]

FTFA: They're going to auction off the 1710-1755 MHz spectrum in addition to the already planned 2110-2155 MHz spectrum.

UMTS: "The specific frequency bands originally defined by the UMTS standard are 1885-2025 MHz for uplink and 2110-2200 MHz for downlink."

Once again, we can't use the frequencies that the rest of the world uses, so we have to get "Americas" phones with different bands or wait for Nokia et al to release "6-band" (800, 900, 1800, 1900, Euro/Japan UMTS, Americas UMTS) phones. Goddammit!

90 mhz ain't much

[baomike]

Can broadband really be put in 90 mhz?
Consider that a SD tv channel is 6 Mhz.
Now NTSC tv is not the most efficeint use of 6 MHz , but HD TV takes even more.
How many people each wanting 1-10 MHz of bandwidth can you fit in this space?

Re:90 mhz ain't much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 90 megahertz, not 90 millihertz.

Re:90 mhz ain't much

[provolt]

How many people each wanting 1-10 MHz of bandwidth can you fit in this space?

It's 90 MHz so I'm going to say somewhere between 90 and 9.

Re:90 mhz ain't much

[Amouth]

the peoblem with that is that it is video that you are talking about.. tv is horrid when brodcast.. it needs soo much bandwith..

when you look at a 2.4ghz netowrk (say chan 6 becsue it is most common)

top = 2,448,000,000 hz
bottom = 2,426,000,000 hz
diffrence = 22,000,000 hz = 22mhz span that can be used for a 54mbit connection with a local wifi.. and done very nasty
(90/22)*54 = 220.9 mbits avaliable)
considering most cable modems are 3mbit and dsl is 1.5mb
220.9 /3 = 73.6 cable or 147.2 for dsl connection speeds per cell tower..

that is alot of free room and that is agian using a very nasty protocal..
if they clean it up and use an effecent protocal they are going to get alot of bandwith.. and if they do something like ipv6 / leap users woln't notice they are switching towers.. TV is horid when you think about the fact that it is always brodcasting to everyone and just eating up the space.. when you use it as an as needed network it is more than enough room.. because no one is going to be using max bandwith all the time everyone will take slices and use it for only a portion of the time..

Re:90 mhz ain't much

[RadioTV]

Consider that a SD tv channel is 6 Mhz.

No, it isn't. NTSC (analog) video is broadcast in 6MHz. SD (digital) is MPEG2 compressed; muxed with more MPEG compressed channels and other data for a total of 19.39 Mbits. Then it is run through a couple forward error correction algorithms and ends up at 39.78 Mbits. Then it is modulated using 8-vsb and transmitted in 6MHz. There are huge differences between NTSC and SD.

Re:90 mhz ain't much

[DaemonTW]

I'm assuming they were refferring to the signal bandwidth, not the actual bitrate. From what I understood they were trying to say that it's the same bandwith, but significantly better quality. As a reference for efficiency, most CDMA phone services have around 1.25Mhz of raw bandwith and they can fit 32,000 channels into this!

Where are they going to?

[elgatozorbas]

TFA does not say what exactly is this 'obscure part of the spectrum' they are going to. Anyone?

Re:Where are they going to?

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be a state secret -- which makes you a terrorist for asking.

Re:Where are they going to?

[teklob]

If they told you it wouldn't exactly be obscure, now would it?

HDTV takes 6 MHz

[michaelmalak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC -- emphasis added:

The ATSC system supports a host of different display resolutions and frame rates. The formats below list frame/field rates and lines of resolution (for more informations and links, see also the TV resolution overview at the end of this article):

• SDTV
  480i60 (NTSC), 480p24, 480p30 576i50, 576p25 (PAL, SECAM);
• EDTV
  480p60; 576p50
• HDTV
  720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30, 720p50, 720p60, 1080i50, 1080i60, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30

ATSC signals are designed to use the same 6 MHz bandwidth as NTSC television channels.

It's a good start-"/."'s E.F. Huton.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes. This will mean noone knows that they're stepping up production to keep the US on top because the value of the dollar is basically collapsing. As long as noone notices it's about to collapse, it doesn't collapse. That's how finance works."

*rolls eyes*

Ladies and Gentlemen. I give you Finance Minister m50d of the nation of Slashdot.

Re:It's a good start-"/."'s E.F. Huton.

[m50d]

Can I have a hat with a red button on it?

Re:It's a good start-"/."'s E.F. Huton.

[WilliamSChips]

No, but you can have a Red Hat with a button on it.

Does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that tinfoil will no longer be effective?

M0 is the money printed...

[YesIAmAScript]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

M0 is the currency in circulation.

M3 seems like a rather difficult number to nail down. Additionally, the only stuff that is in the M3 that isn't in the M2 (still reported) is stuff that is outside the US government's control. So I don't see how not reporting it fits into area of allowing more US government wrongdoing.

To be honest, the area which really falls under the area of fiat currency nuttery is the cap between M1 and M0. It's the fractional reserve system that gold prohibits and it's the fractional reserve system that produces the gap between M0 and M1.

Given that you'll still be getting M0 and M1 (and indeed M2), why do you think this change in reporting will increase abuses by the US government? Why should it make our already fiat currency any more ephemeral?

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

So you're saying that 600 billion dollars in print in circulation is all we need to query, and it is only those figures that affect consumer price inflation?

I'm not sure I agree.

First, the M3 is by far the easiest way for the Fed to inflate the currency base "secretly" without there being a huge effect in the U.S. retail economy initially. Most of the money will be offshore dollars, eurodollars and institutional money funds -- these initially have zero effect on price inflation but as the money is converted for other means, they can and will have an effect.

The M1/M0 supply is not enough to see what government is doing to our money. If you need a better explanation, Rothbard's book is now available freely online. Go check out http://www.mises.org/money.aspx for more info on how government is destroying our wealth "secretly" and how removing the M3 figures is an even bigger crime against freedom.

In the long run, other central banks in the world that hold our currency are the ones who keep our currency in check. If they disagree with US dollar stability, we'll find ourselves in a hyperinflating economy -- the kind that us gold bugs would love to see.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

Doh, forgot to hit preview and test the link: http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[AuMatar]

Except that gold has no value either. Oh, its kind of pretty, but it has no real use. If the dollar was to go hyperinflation, there's no particular reason we'd move back to gold. More likely, we'd start using Euros or other currency, just like the dollar is now defacto cash in many third world markets. If it goes so far that not even foreign bank notes are trusted, its even less likely that gold would be seen as valuable- at that point we're so FUBARed were back to barter, most likely with ammo and medicine being the most valuable items, as by that point the government has utterly collapsed.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

Gold has no value except as a store of wealth for those who use it, as a much-needy industrial metal, and as a store of wealth for every central bank in the world.

If the dollar hyperinflates, we WOULD switch to other fiat currencies, surely. I'll still use gold as my wealth store (it is not an investment for me, merely a version of your bank). I buy everything with gold and silver (I keep my wealth stored as a hard metal, and when I need something I have avenues for converting it to the fiat currency of choice merely for a business transaction). My money has been very stable over the years, even disregarding the value of gold going up against the dollar. I'm starting to track gold ratios against consumer fuel, utility costs and other "real life" costs and I'm surprised at how solid the metal has been over the past 3 years versus those prices.

Would we ever switch to a gold standard? I hope not -- gold is still artificially cheap and I'm happy to keep buying it. Hell, I love the fact that everyone eats the US dollars up -- it helps me save for the future at a discount.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[AuMatar]

The problem is- to use it as a value store, *other* people have to accept it as a value store. If you offered to buy something from me in gold, I wouldn't take it- I have no use for it and can't easily spend it. Whereas I would take cash or barter. Even if the dollar crashed, I wouldn't take it unless the second part changed- unless the 90% majority of the US started passing back gold nuggets instead of greenbacks. Unlikely to happen. So unless you're buying gold as an investment hoping it just keeps pace (or exceeds) inflation, having it in gold doesn't magicly help you at all. You're better off investing it in a buisness, the stock market, or real estate. Things that are likely to increase in value.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

You won't accept it, but through all my world travels, I have never been in a city anywhere that didn't buy gold for close to the spot value -- ever. In one town I do business in (~5000 residents) there are 3 different places that accept it.

My currency is in gold and silver. This is the equivalent of what people using checking and savings accounts for. I also have some gold and silver for my retirement. My "investment" money -- what you'd use a stock market for -- is invested in my businesses. Lately I've had some extra money, so I've been looking at local businesses that I can help start and stay on as a partner. I don't understand the stock market -- putting money into businesses and getting no dividend, and only making money when I sell the stock to some other sucker. When I help someone start a local business, I can expect 20-50% profits annually on my money!

I did buy real estate, until the Fed went crazy inflating the money supply (easy credit flooded into the stock and housing markets, causing the prices to skyrocket artificially). I cashed out of all my over-inflated real estate, bought trailer homes (and soon trailer parks) and put the rest of my money into businesses and gold. I've cashed out of the dollar market (and the markets most inflated because of currency inflation) almost entirely.

Gold does help me, but it isn't magic. I feel very stable, will never get a loan or any debt ever again, and am not worried about my future. I do not believe that most readers of this site are as comfortable, even though many of them may have more money (on the books) than I do.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[AuMatar]

Actually, if you fear the dollar devaluing you should be taking out loans- as much as you can. By the time you have to pay them off, it'll be pocket change. Inflation and hyperinflation are good for people with massive debt.

Gold still doesn't make sense though. You need money in 3 forms:

1)Short term- money to spend at the movies or the market. This is still cash, I can't walk into 7-11 and give them gold. Basicly cash on hand.

2)Long term- this is investments, so the money grows. Whatever form that investment is (buisnesses like you said are investments. Fairly risky since half of new buisnesses fail in 5 years, but highly profitable if they pan out).

3)Medium term- a larger cash supply for emergencies, big ticket items, and monthly payments. Again, it needs to be cash, or easily convertible. It also shouldn't be too much, with overflows going to long term. You could use gold here, but its pointless to- the money shouldn't be here for long, and gold just adds to your risk. Someone can put a gun to your head and ask for your gold, he can't do that with your bank. Its such a small amount of money circulating so rapidly that worrying about inflation is pointless, unless that inflation is Weimar Republic levels.

In short, it still just makes no sense.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your ideas about the Gold Standard. Have you seen the documentary "The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America" that you can find and download online? Interesting little "history of currency" film with a major conspiracy angle.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, central governments have often tended to outlaw private ownership of gold during economic crashes and major currency devaluations. One of the main reasons that gold is used as a standard is that it is relatively easy to control and monopolize. You may find under very harsh conditions that the gold is taken from you without compensation under a "patriot anti-terror national love your country pray for the children" act anyway during the hardest of times.

Of course you can try to hide it and wait till times are better in that case, and anyway, the stock and currency markets would be devastated anyway. So at that point fully owning your own home (and growing lots of food) would be the most useful I guess.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your interesting approach to the experiment of personal economics.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[unitron]

"Except that gold has no value either. Oh, its kind of pretty, but it has no real use."

Yeah, it's not like it conducts electricity or anything like that.

From wikipedia:

Applications

Pure gold is too soft for ordinary use and is hardened by alloying with silver, copper, and other metals. Gold and its many alloys are most often used in jewelry, coinage and as a standard for monetary exchange in many countries. Because of its high electrical conductivity and resistance to corrosion and other desirable combinations of physical and chemical properties, gold also emerged in the late 20th century as an essential industrial metal.

        * Gold can be made into thread and used in embroidery.
        * Gold performs critical functions in computers, communications equipment, spacecraft, jet aircraft engines, and a host of other products.
        * The resistance to oxidation of gold has led to its widespread use as thin layers electroplated on the surface of electrical connectors to ensure a good connection.
        * Gold is used in restorative dentistry especially in tooth restorations such as crowns and bridges.
        * Colloidal gold (a gold nanoparticle) is an intensely colored solution that is currently studied in many labs for medical, biological and other applications. It is also the form used as gold paint on ceramics prior to firing.
        * Chlorauric acid is used in photography for toning the silver image.
        * Gold(III) chloride is used as a catalyst in organic chemistry. It is also the usual starting point for making other gold compounds.
        * Gold is used as a coating enabling biological material to be viewed under a scanning electron microscope.
        * Many competitions and honors, such as the Olympics and the Nobel Prize, award a gold medal to the winner (with silver to the second-place finisher, and bronze to the third.)
        * Since it is a good reflector of both infrared and visible light, it is used for the protective coatings on many artificial satellites.
        * Disodium aurothiomalate is a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (administered intramuscularly). It inhibits lymphocyte proliferation, lysosomal enzyme release, the release of reactive oxygen species from macrophages, and IL-1 production. However, it can also cause photosensitive rashes, gastrointestinal disturbance, and kidney damage.
        * The gold isotope Au-198, (half-life: 2.7 days) is used in some cancer treatments and for treating other diseases.
        * Gold flake is used on and in some gourmet sweets and drinks. Called varak or (varaq) in India. Having no reactivity it adds no taste but is taken as a delicacy. Some use it as an excuse to create super-expensive delicacies ($1,000 cocktails). For similar reasons, it also used as the basis for some superstitious, over the top, health claims. Only the salts and radioisotopes (mentioned above) have any evidence of medicinal value.
        * White gold (an alloy of gold with platinum, palladium, nickel, and/or zinc) serves as a substitute for platinum.
        * Green gold (a gold/silver alloy) is used in specialized jewelry while gold alloys with copper (reddish color) are more widely used for that purpose (rose gold).

Nope, no real use.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

Actually, if you fear the dollar devaluing you should be taking out loans- as much as you can.

If I wanted to take advantage, yes. I don't want to, I just want stability, safety and fairness.

)Short term- money to spend at the movies or the market. This is still cash, I can't walk into 7-11 and give them gold. Basicly cash on hand.

I found 25 restaurants, 8ish grocers and numerous consumer goods stores within 45 minutes of me who redeem gold annd silver for their goods. I'm sitting in a restaurant now that does (pic on my blog in an hour!) Greeks, Jews and Hindus run many businesses (i'm half-Hindu, Wife's a Jew, business partner is Greek heh). Many of these redeemers give me 50% discounts for hard metal purchases.

I keep about US$2000 in US dollars on hand for liquidity sake, though.

Long term- this is investments, so the money grows.

Right, the businesses I run or help start. I've watched 3 fail in 16 years (out of 30). Average return is 30% plus equity.

Medium term- a larger cash supply for emergencies, big ticket items, and monthly payments. Again, it needs to be cash, or easily convertible.

Gold IS easily convertible! I helped a good friend jump to my gold system 4 years ago. When he bought property this year he converted 200 ounces of gold into ~US$84,000 in less than 1 day. When I closed my BankOne account 3 years ago, it took 3 days and helluva lotta forms.

In short, it still just makes no sense.

If I'm wrong, what do I lose?

If you're wrong, what do you lose?

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[AuMatar]

If all you want to do is conduct electricity, there's far better materials. Such as the abundant and cheap copper.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[dada21]

Copper's gotten expensive lately. My biggest IT customer is an electrical contractor getting slayed by copper pricing.

Copper also corrodes, gold doesn't.

Gold is malleable, moreso than copper.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[Pollardito]

Except that gold has no value either. Oh, its kind of pretty, but it has no real use.

perhaps you could take up your argument with the Monster Cable manufacturers

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[meringuoid]

Have you seen the documentary "The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America" that you can find and download online? Interesting little "history of currency" film with a major conspiracy angle.

International Bankers: Because it sounds racist if we use the 'J' word.

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Japanese?

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[Luyseyal]

Fairly risky since half of new buisnesses fail in 5 years, but highly profitable if they pan out).

While half close their doors, by far most do not owe anyone any money. A sizeable majority closes at 0 or in the black. My source? Some lady with the Texas government who helps small businesses. Having said that, I doubt they have statistics on individual investors' losses/gains for those businesses.

-l

Re:M0 is the money printed...

[gtkuhn]

M3 includes the money held in foreign banks. This may be being discontinued due to Iran opening a Euro based oil exchange. Currently, the only two oil exchanges are the NYMEX and the British IPX (American owned), bot do business in USD. Countries must keep reserves of dollars in order to trade oil. If PetroEuros catch on, many countries may flush their USD reserves for Euros. After all, the Euro seems stronger at the moment. Such a flush would give a big hit to the worth of the dollar. Perhaps that is why the Fed will cease publishing the M3.

Great!

[heatdeath]

Now if only they would get rid of the almost 1Ghz allocated to fixed-point communications, like satellite communications, and maritime and aeronautical navigation. I wish they would force them to use their spectrum more wisely instead of forcing something that everyone uses to be crammed into a tiny space. (Satellite should be using UWB - they have to have dishes anyway - they can afford to receive a signal that is just above the background signal strength)

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Re:Great!

[slightlyspacey]

This is just plain not going to happen. The satellite/aeronautical/test community is running out of spectrum as it is with more systems and systems of systems coming online. You're going to see proposals coming to the 2007 ITU WRC (World Radiocommunication Conference) to allocate even more spectrum for these areas.

Simultaneously with these proposals, are studies being conducted to greatly increase the amount of data that can be sent and received with the existing spectrum and to reduce if not eliminate inefficiencies. Of particular interest is the DoD-sponsored study on the INET (Integrated Network Enhanced Telemetry) architecture.

BTW, satellite receiving stations do *not* have to make use of dishes. Some amazing things are being done with small phased array antennas.

Karma whore; pretty chart

[michaelmalak]

U.S. Frequency Allocation Chart

The frequencies discussed in the article, 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz, can be found on the right side of the fifth bar.

Great.-Another non-reader.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How much more of the spectrum are they going to give away to proprietary companies? The least they could do is _sell_ it. "

[From the article you didn't read]
"Passed a year ago this month, the act called for auctioning spectrum in the 1710- to 1755-MHz band used for fixed wireless government communications. The Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration was given the assignment of estimating the cost of reallocating systems already operating in the band. The NTIA said the $936 million figure is much less than the wireless industry had estimated.

"We found a way to open up a 'beach front' spectrum for key economic activity without jeopardizing our national security," Gallagher added.

The cost of moving to a new radio frequency will be paid for with money raised through the spectrum auction . The last major spectrum sale raised more than $2 billion.

What is more, the FCC is planning to auction spectrum in the 2110- to 2155-MHz band, which is a non-government band. [All over emphasis mine because you all can't take a hint]"

about bloody time the feds gave something back

[swschrad]

the government controls 99% of the spectrum, useable and experimental, and this is the first time they have ever given back a single kilocycle of allocation. in the past, it has always been nonprofit, public safety, and commercial use that has been tagged for reallocations.

congratulations for finally stepping up to the plate, and many more for uncle selfish.

Et tu, Brut

[Anonymous Coward]

Question, meet Answer.

Conspiracy theorist, meet tinfoil hat.

It's a good start-An Economic Staple.

[Anonymous Coward]

" Can I have a hat with a red button on it?"

Yes, you can have an "Easy Button"

Holy Crap

[User 956]

this estimate gives a ballpark of around $20 billion - $30 billion for 100mhz of spectrum. That would more than offset the government's costs to move.

(Though, if the gov't keeps fucking with our currency they way they are, I'm not sure if $20 billion will be worth all that much)

Republican political favors!

[wshwe]

The wireless carrier lobbyists must have been busy wining and dining Republican officials.

Power

[Sycraft-fu]

The problem with open spectrums like 2.4GHz is they have to be low power and either short range omni, or medium range but narrow direction. The reason is that if anyone can set it up, there has to be a reasonable expectation that your equipment will work and not be interfered with by others.

I mean suppose there was no limits on the 2.4GHz spectrum. So you go and buy a little, low power wireless device and hook it up. You get nothing, in fact, the device gets damaged. Why? Well turns out I live down the block, and I use that band for high power transmissions. I have a 10,000 watt transmitter that I use to get my data all over the city. What's more, I'm not using part of the spectrum, I'm using all of it. My signal just blocks out yours because it's so much more powerful.

So, when you want something that is going to be higher power, longer range, and deployed on a wider basis, there needs to be some licensing to keep people from stepping on each other's toes all the time. I want my communications providers sharing the spectrum, not playing a power game to see who can block who out.

Re:Power

[CRC'99]

I live down the block, and I use that band for high power transmissions. I have a 10,000 watt transmitter that I use to get my data all over the city.

That's ok, you can use your 10,000 watt transmitter - because you won't be around for very long - especially if you use that kinda power on 2.4Ghz.

The fun thing about these 'power games' is that for 2 way communications, BOTH sides need to reach each other. this means you'll need 2 x 10,000 watt transmitters.... and good luck getting a power supply for one of them... quick maths... 10,000 watts @ 13.8v (assume car battery!) = 724 Amps at 100% efficiency... RF stages are usually about 40-60% efficient - so add 50% for loss gives you just over a 1000 Amps @ 13.8v

So, if you can carry that thing around to get back to your base station on the fringe areas, then I've love to see it - although Darwin would probably take care of you before the RF would...

Re:Power

[ewieling]

I live on a mountian, 30 miles from the nearest city. I would love to be able to backhaul my internet service via wireless to an ISP in that city. I've read about the lower 700Mhz range (licensed) as well as others. It seems that the licenses are expensive and the hardware is expensive. I would love to be able to get the equipment and licenses for under $1,000 (heck under $2,000 would even be OK) to get a 1Mbit link to the ISP. Any pointers to sites on the net that can help educate this RF newbie about this stuff and PRACTICAL things you can do?

Re:Power

[Detritus]

I've seen similar sized transmitters used for communication with satellites. They're called klystrons. They aren't cheap, and they run off a high-voltage power supply. The one I saw could produce 20 kW at 2.4 GHz. They are safe if you keep a reasonable distance from the transmit antenna.

Are you *really* going to use it?

[Wesley Felter]

Virtually no one is using the rather large 5GHz U-NII band that the FCC already gave us, while 2.4GHz gets more and more crowded. I suppose there would be more demand for 1.7GHz or 2.1GHz unlicensed since it is "better" spectrum than 5GHz, but the precedent still isn't good.

What about the mass spectrum space above 30 GHz

[jrmcferren]

People don't realize the spectrum only seems small. I dream of cable TV being sent to the home, car, handheld, etc by celluar radio. Gigabit wireless, hundreds of thousands of broadcast channels, and more brought to you by EHF. EHF is the portion between 30 GHz and Infared (300 GHz). Public safety would beneift as these frequencies as not many buildings can block EHF. Police would be able to see a picture from an APB (if avalible) along with the audio description. There would be no more long antennas as wavelengths are reaching milimeters and centimeters at this point.

Re:What about the mass spectrum space above 30 GHz

[jgrafton]

Everything at such a high frequency will have to be line-of-site, however, as there's no hope of bouncing off the ionosphere or anything.

It could be done, yes, but it'd involve quite a high investment.

Misleading

[Chriscim]

This subject is misleading. I saw the subject and thought the FCC was leaving radio. :(

Wow,

[HermanAB]

all of 90MHz. I'm about as impressed as a sloth who just found another shady tree branch to hang from - yawn...

Gold is still held at Ft. Knox

[Jennifer3000]

The gold that "was" at Fort Knox? There's still nearly 150 million ounces there; none has been removed for many decades. http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/ind ex.cfm?flash=yes&action=fun_facts13

Re:Non-standard uplink frequency! Grr!

[rabtech]

I think you mean the rest of the world refuses to use the same frequencies we use. We picked the vast majority of them first. We invented the technologies for and allocated the frequencies for AM, FM, TV (which is just FM), Radar, Cell, et al first almost without exception (in terms of commercial or public availability, not necessarily in terms of first invention/patent)

It is the rest of the world (Europe, Japan, China, etc) that refuses to use the standards we created.

Re:about bloody time the feds gave something back

[rabtech]

the government controls 99% of the spectrum, useable and experimental, and this is the first time they have ever given back a single kilocycle of allocation. in the past, it has always been nonprofit, public safety, and commercial use that has been tagged for reallocations.

congratulations for finally stepping up to the plate, and many more for uncle selfish.

Actually that isn't true... check the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

The vast majority of the spectrum is non-government exclusive or shared government/non-government. Only the sections with RED under them are government-exclusive allocations.

No, I'm not saying that.

[YesIAmAScript]

I think M2 is a better measure.

Some might even think M3 covers more stuff, but the additional stuff it covers does not include stuff under the US government's control. So I don't see why not reporting M3 frees up the government to do more bad things. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying our government isn't doing bad things, simply that this won't affect their ability to do them.

I do wish to say that if you really meant the total money supply (not M0), then the phrase "print more counterfeit money" should have been left out of your argument.

Re:about bloody time the feds gave something back

[GigsVT]

Hah, I should get them to output that on the imagesetter at work. That would make one hell of a poster.

What's your point?

[Sycraft-fu]

People operate transmitters in that range of power all the time. They are called FM radio stations. Some are even higher, as high as 100,000 watts. It's not like it's hard to get that kind of power to a fixed installation. I'm not talking bi-directional devices here, in fact I'm not talking any real device. I am pointing out why there have to be power limits to an unlicensed spectrum.

Re:about bloody time the feds gave something back

[Alrescha]

At the risk of nuking my friends at Omega into the ground,

http://www.omega.com/literature/posters/

A.

How is gold used?

[tkrotchko]

"as a much-needy industrial metal,"

I'm not sure gold is that needed is it? What process in the world requires gold and can't use a substitute? I know its a good conductor, but so it copper. I knows its very maleable, but I don't think there's an application for gold that can't be done by something else (in an industrial sense).

Its main value seems to come from the fact that everybody thinks its valuable for jewelry. So its valuable because people think its valuable.

My issue with the gold-bug people is that they all seem to predict emminent collapse of the dollar as long as I've been alive (which is more than 40 years), and yet gold has never risen particularly, even when the dollar was doing poorly. In fact most precious metals seem to be a bad investment; even when silver rose in the late 70's, it was mainly due to manipulation by the Hunt brothers.

I think you buy gold if you find it pretty. Otherwise, buy land or a house in a fast appreciating market... if hyperinflation takes place, you're covered, and better still, the mortgage you have will be worth less while the value of the investment rises.

Re:How is gold used?

[SmittyTheBold]

Well, excellent conductivity and extremely low reactivity. It's not quite a noble gas, but gold doesn't corrode, which makes it much better for delicate electonics and mating connectors than most other metals.

Money money money (as usual)

[spaceyhackerlady]

Everything at such a high frequency will have to be line-of-site, however, as there's no hope of bouncing off the ionosphere or anything.

The 1.7 and 2.1 GHz frequencies that are the subject of this article don't bounce off the ionosphere worth a shit either.

I suspect the real reason is the relative maturity and low cost of L band microwave doodads, as opposed to the cost and development effort required to deploy devices at (say) 90 GHz that develop more than a few milliwatts of RF.

...laura

Re:Money money money (as usual)

[evilviper]

The 1.7 and 2.1 GHz frequencies that are the subject of this article don't bounce off the ionosphere worth a shit either.

No they don't skip, but they propogate via groundwave just fine, hence, you don't need direct line-of-sight everywhere.

Imagine a cellphone that drops the call if a bird goes between you and the top of the 90GHz radio tower. Imagine a cellphone that can't recieve calls while clipped on your belt.

Infrared is the PERFECT model for what happens at 30GHz+... It's like communicating by invisible light. Absolutely anything will block the signal.

Those frequencies will simply not work worth a crap on the ground. They will, however, work wonderfully with satellites, as you always have line-of-sight, and can mount an antenna (dish) where practically nothing will block the line-of-sight between you and the satellite.

Re:FUCK

[AK Marc]

Anyway, Does anyone know what kind of throughput we're talking about here?

Well, for a rough guess based on currently used equipment and general power and range specifications, you could guess the data to be twice the Hz and not be too far off. So, it is about 200 Mbps data, shared. Spread city wide, you'd be able to support less than 1000 concurrent users at 128k up and 128k down. Of course, with using cells, frequency reuse and such, the speeds available will be higher. The real answer to your question is "depends on the deployment." Also, sharing the data among so many users will lose alot of data to overhead. I'd guess that a typical installation would support 10 Mbps symetrical or 15/5 (20 Mbps total summed up and down) and would probably be spread over nearly one square mile. What speeds you get depends on the number of subscribers per square mile, and they'd probably limit the speeds on each individual device to no more than 1 Mbps, maybe less.

Here's a novel idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't the Feds keep the band that they are currently using and instead sell the band they want to move to?