Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Wireless Broadband?
Adroit Ape asks: "The FCC is scheduled to begin auctioning the radio spectrum salvaged from analog television by February 28, 2008. Public interest groups are calling for auction rules that give new entrants a fair shot at the spectrum, which includes 60Mhz in the 700Mhz band. Are we likely to see groundbreaking innovation in wireless broadband? Who do you foresee to be the major players in the auction and subsequent technologies?"
Because big telcom will pay off the FCC to make it as hard as possible for small-time operators to get their hands on any of that; why do you think they pushed so hard for that spectrum to be reallocated in the first place?
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
As I peer into my crystal ball I see through the fog .... Sprint-Nextel
ooooh scary.
They're auctioning parts of the electromagnetic spectrum?! WHAT?!
I thought they didn't own that...
Who gets the money?
More importantly, who should get the money, and why don't they?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
It's called EVDO . EVDO uses cell phone signals to deliver broadband access to laptops etc. Speeds up to 2Mbit/sec. I've personally seen about 80KByte/sec or about 768Kbit/sec (0.7Mbit/sec). Speeds may have improved since I last used Verizon's service in 2006.
Id like to see the spectrum used for more broadcast TV channels. Im sick of paying $50+ a month for the delivery of a TV signal that is full of advertising.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Wireless broadband in the sense of wifi is very likely to be stopped or at least slowed down. Because there's no money there for companies and lots of problems for governements as it's possible to everyone to build (and grow) a public free abd uncensored network.
If the sense is that of Wireless Local Loop, then it's very likely that it will succeed as the natural evolution of the . That is, lower cost for deployment, no digging and no cables.
There can also be the possibility of the so called 4G networks as the evolution of the 2.5G and 3G wireless networks. I think companies have to first get their money back from investments, huge investments.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I'm not a fan of wireless broadband. Maybe I'm old fashioned (though I don't see how at only 22...) but aside from casual web surfing, I'd never trust anything to a wireless signal. Too much of my life depends on conducting online transactions: banking (all of it, I've never been to a branch office with this bank), investments, paying bills (all of them), etc etc. While certainly no encryption is unbreakable, I still believe I fare better odds placing my data on hard wires, where individuals would have to be specifically targetting it, rather than letting it flow free and open into the air for all to capture and (attempt to) abuse. Just my $0.02.
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
The beauty of 802.11b is that the power is low enough that the spectrum can be used by many people at once. If you need long range you can use a high gain antenna. If you use an omnidirectional antenna, your signal wont go far enough to screw up too many other people. Also don't make the 802.11g mistake and make the whole spectrum one big channel so that just one user can screw it up for everyone. Also don't let the channels overlap like they do with 802.11b so that one user can ruin two of the three available bands.
...as in "highest bidder gets the spectrum", big telecom will get it anyway. Like when the UMTS channels were auctioned off in Germany, with the large telecom companies placing bids in the billion Euro range.
;-)
At least the treasury got a very nice boost out of it, in fact I think the companies overpaid in their fear of being cut off from an important future market
C - the footgun of programming languages
For gaming? None. Wireless is useless for anything but the most trivial of web browsing. Want a stable connection over a distance? Coaxial copper or fiber are the only solutions, it's simple physics.
Wireless broadband has no future. Sure, the kiddies can browse mobile versions of sites on their cellphones at absurd charges to their parents, but other than that it is completely useless.
Maybe. We'll definitely see groundbreaking innovation in the big telcos ability to profit, though. And almost certainly see groundbreaking innovation in the delivery of advertisement.
Consumers getting what they want? Not so much.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't suppose there is any chance they will give some of this spectrum to amateur radio. *sighs* Hmmm. Perhaps a non-profit could raise some money to buy some for the hams.
Years ago the amature radio community petitioned for the rights to a small abandoned band of frequencies that had orininally been set aside for govt use. The hamsters were shot down then when the bandwidth was practically worthless you can bet they will be denied now that its actually valuable.
The major players have had plans and gentlemens agreements on the spectrum that will be freed up for years. The only "benefit" that the public will see out of this is at most faster 3g services. Of course the government is going to be paid billions for it, resulting in the second "benefit" to the public...higher fees for wireless services.
Offtopic, I know, but I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer.
I view Slashdot using the RSS feed. However, articles like this one are left out of the RSS feed. Is there a way to get the "less important" articles to show up in RSS? Because, well... having to check Slashdot to see certain new articles defeats the purpose of RSS.
As far as how this will affect television.. I assume the effect of digital broadcast television will be that you'll get a perfectly clear picture, but only on good days. With analog, when the weather is bad you can tune into a slightly fuzzy station, or with an antenna you can pick up a slightly fuzzy station that is broadcast from far away. With digital, I guess it'll be all or nothing. Raining outside? Forget tuning in.
The FCC needs somebody to tell them that if they allocate this spectrum for WiMax-style networking, instead of auctioning it, the effect on the economy will be so great, that in its value of an economic stimulus, the revenue collected from higher economic activity through taxation will greatly exceed whatever small sum they hope to collect for the 'rights' to the spectrum at auction.
The proof of this is simple: there will be willing buyers at the auction. They wouldn't be there if they didn't perceive the value of the airwaves to be higher than what they were going to pay at auction - the buyers are in it for the profit.
Now, with a Congress that shrinks in fear at the shape of the Laffer Curve, I don't expect this kind of logic will go over so well, so as an alternate tactic: Rural Broadband really needs VHF allocation to get WiMax out over the hills. Children in rural areas are the ones who stand to benefit most from access to the Internet and right now, on 26.4 dial-up, they're disadvantaged - Won't somebody think of the children?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The radio spectrum is a public asset. Shouldn't companies submit proposals for what to do with unused spectrum, and the FCC would then grant it based on the "highest and best use"?
[tinfoilhat]
What burns me is that it seems the whole purpose of switching to DTV was an excuse to squeeze the remaining broadcast channels into a smaller space, so they could sell off the rights to the rest. Couldn't they have just reassigned the analog channels?
People who still watch over-the-air TV aren't exactly the ones asking for higher quality, or buying new sets to get it.
[/tinfoilhat]
That said, wideley available WiMax service, or something like it, would be a great thing.
FIXME: Add a sig here