Slashdot Mirror
The Dirty Business of Assembling WiMAX Spectrum
go_jesse writes in to make us aware of a MarketWatch article reporting on the battles that WiMAX partners Sprint and Clearwire are fighting — sometimes with one another — to put together enough spectrum to fill in their planned WiMAX coverage map. The problem is that decades ago the FCC passed out licenses in what would become the WiMAX band to schools and non-profits nationwide. Once Sprint began knocking on their doors asking to license their spectrum — once they began seeing dollar signs in a forgotten resource — dozens, then hundreds of these organizations applied to the FCC to renew long-dormant licenses. The FCC has granted the first of these requests and Sprint has asked it to reconsider. Confusingly, Sprint's partner Clearwire has sided with the schools and non-profits. The article sheds light in one messy corner of the battle to provide a "third pipe" into US consumers' homes.
I'm tired of Slashdot discriminating against perfectly fine corporations like Sprint, AT&T, and Microsoft. Corporations are people too! They;re just trying to get the best price so they can pass the value on to the consumer.
Vote George W. Bush in 2008 to keep global warming liberals out of office!
Write in the man!
--
Global warming is a bunch of hot air.
IF the schools and such are granted these extensions and Sprint has to pay big bucks to license the spectrum, who in the end pays for it? In the end we're the ones that get screwed
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
I don't see how any company/organization has a right to claim to a spectrum and who gave the FCC ownership of all of them and the ability to hand them out to the highest bidders? Politicians making laws about stuff they don't understand but see a dollar sign on. On a lighter note I declare myself owner of all the ocean front property on mars (once there are oceans) that way in a few hundred years my kids can be filthy stinking rich as they sell off the best pieces on 1/2 acre lots.
But maybe I'm just jaded.
"Politicians making laws about stuff they don't understand but see a dollar sign on."
/.er talking about something they don't understand but uses anyways to take a swipe at politicians. The FCC regulates usage of the spectrum so things don't interfere with each other and cause nasty things to happen. You wouldn't want my 47MHz cordless phone interfering with your 47MHz radio-controlled mini-car, would you? You don't want my 2.4GHz cordless phone screwing up your 2.4GHz wireless router's data transmission, would you?
Silly 7-digit
Sit down, be quiet, let the big boys talk.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"This is a technology that will remain mired in the mud and never goes anywhere."
That's eh, funny - WiMAX seems to be doing pretty well in China...
the spectrum was already given. If the FCC takes it back without compensation, then it pretty much says that the feds can do it to our lands. Far better that these companies ahve to pay money for what they do not own, then to steal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
WiMAX partners Sprint and Clearwire are fighting to put together enough spectrum to fill in their planned WiMAX coverage map.
Given that they can't even fill in their cell service coverage map, I can't imagine this is going well at all.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
They ignore that all other efforts to build a massive wireless data infrastructure have failed to find sufficient customers even when they make it easy and fairly cheap.
Huh? WiMAX may be over-hyped, but when has someone ever created an effective, ubiquitous, highspeed wireless data infrastructure and then offered it cheaply? I don't know what "MetroCom" you're referring to, but I'm sure that no one has ever offered a good wireless data network anywhere I've lived. Verizon's data services are kind of passable, assuming you don't mind being stuck with Verizon's service and a proprietary wireless receiver, but they're not that great. And they have customers.
When are phased array digital radio networks going to be cheap, fast and reliable enough that "spectrum" is no longer a bottleneck? Different signals can be coded by their 3D location, which is exclusive of other signals by completely familiar physical reality, so there's no need for registration of frequencies other than that required by the signaling protocol itself.
No more treating bandwidth as a limited resource. Other implications are the FCC losing most of its legitimate role, except maybe just to test and regulate health effects of the radiation - and maybe the locations of ugly transceivers. Since the expense of owning and operating a transceiver would drop, the industry wouldn't be in the hands of just the big telcos, which all have mutual interests that are at odds with those of most consumers.
--
make install -not war
WiFi has shown that the world doesn't end when there's a region of spectrum that anybody can use; modern electronics is smart enough to co-exist, and when there is interferences (Bluetooth vs. WiFi), manufacturers get together and work it out.
So, just open up a bunch of bands under similar terms to WiFi. If Sprint wants to deploy WiMax there, great. If other people want to use it for baby monitors, that's great too.
What companies are really after is for the government to hand them a monopoly and to make it difficult for their competitors to enter the market, and that we shouldn't happen.
So, FCC, take away the bands from the spectrum-hoarding institutions, but don't give them to other companies, just open them up.
There are schools in very sparsely populated areas that still use this. Primarily they use it for tele-teaching types of things where the student sits in front of a TV while the teacher on the TV is giving a lesson to the entire district or even state. It should not just be taken away from them. These places often have no other way to do something like this. They have been investing into this infrastructure for decades. If the spectrum is taken away from them, then they should be paid so that they can create other forms of distance learning. Verizon doesn't want to pay for this, but they just can't wait for when the same schools will pay them for the services that they will provide over that spectrum later.
If we open up the spectrum and phased arrays are needed to improve reception, then companies will fill the need quickly and efficiently. If we don't open up the spectrum first, there may simply be no economic incentive to develop cheap versions of these kinds of technologies for consumer use.
...But what you've just said proves that you didn't even bother to read three sentences into the article summary on Slashdot. You only read the headline and jumped to your own conclusion.
First, here's what you missed from the article summary:
Once Sprint began knocking on their doors asking to license their spectrum -- once they began seeing dollar signs in a forgotten resource -- dozens, then hundreds of these organizations applied to the FCC to renew long-dormant licenses.
The article itself goes on to explain further how these school districts never used this wireless spectrum, how some didn't even know they owned it, until Verizon came knocking at their door. Only after Verizon came asking for rights to the spectrum did the schools and non-profits step up and try to renew licenses that they already let expire.
On the one hand, these businesses are playing dirty pool and are only stopping Verizon's development of that wireless spectrum because of the money. On the other hand, that slice of the wireless spectrum (2.5 GHz band) was specifically reserved for school & non-profit use, and was never meant to be utilized for commercial development.
My personal opinion: let Verizon have it. Verizon's attempting to buy out a slice of the spectrum to develop a privately-owned wireless network. While they expect everyone to buy Verizon equipment to exclusively operate on that frequency, chances are the market will prefer public-access frequencies that are more widely available and cheaper. Let them waste their money.
So you're advocating a Democratic solution to a Republican enterprise? That doesn't seem very progressive.
Verizon like all other cellular data services, is riding on the coattails of their voice. At this point, data is a pimple on the butt of voice. When voice infrastructure is all digital, why not piggyback the data customers on the same equipment. More money. This is quite different from building out a separate infrastructure for just data users, which is what HypeMAX proposes to it's investors. By the way I was thinking of Ricochet. See the Wikipedia entry for Ricochet internet service.
Were these pre-existing licenses made known to Sprint et. al. when they bid on this spectrum? Wouldn't winning this bid entitle you to the spectrum -- making the FCC as the vendor responsible for actual delivery of the required space?
Or are these just little pockets of exceptions that everyone hoped would just "work out" in the end?
So you think wireless internet is doomed to fail because: over 10 years ago, before the internet had really became mainstream, someone tried to sell wireless internet at 56k speeds and it failed. Therefore, there is currently no demand and commercial success is not possible?
I see. I'm supposed to convince YOU that someone ELSE'S hand-waving business case actually makes sense. No thanks. If there were a crying need for wireless data, the cellular companies would already be seeing tower overload for existing data services. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. MORE! FASTER! BETTER! would be driving WiMAX forward. But it isn't happening. The bulk of phones being sold now, and plans in use, do not include data.
Instead of using the GSM 900/1800 the US has gone for 850/1900. This has no technical merit since 900/1800 is more effective because they are allowing for a simpler antenna design than 850/1900.
I don't know if there is a yearly fee to pay for an assigned frequency or not, but if someone pays for a frequency and don't use it that's just stupid from an economic point of view. If no yearly fee is required that is effectively creating a waste of resources situation.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I'd like to see some interviews of regular users of this service and real numbers. Instead all I see is marketing fluff and PR. TFA you referenced sounds like contingency planning. Just signing agreements on how things would proceed if it ever goes anywhere.
Ever think maybe that had something to do more with the absurd terms of service and not the actual demand for the technology? I'd really like a vacation to space, but the current company wants $1 million + to do it. If the price came down to near that of an airline ticket i'd be all over it. I also don't have a data plan for similar reasons (absurdly high cost, usage restrictions, bad coverage, and horrible contract lock-in).
That said I know a few people that have tried a certain wireless internet service that they have come to affectionately call "Crapwire" due to its unreliability. Then again, getting some more bandwidth and towers might fix that problem too.
Get a web developer
Not many will pay what the cell companies charge. I looked into it and discovered that it would cost more than $50 a month for barely better than isdn speeds (under ideal conditions, mine are far from ideal) with a very low cap (something like 1 gig a month) and a min 2 year contract. Oh yeah and another $150 or so in hardware and set-up fees (though there was a $25 mail in rebate on the hardware, and of course you always get those /sarcasm/).
I suspect this sort of price set up just might explain the lack of uptake.
However there is a local wireless outfit that seems to be doing o.k. with more reasonable rates (merely expensive, not outrageous).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I'm the same. Cell companies charge far too much for their data plans. Like £1 a MB. Ridiculous! I'd love to be able to just take my laptop with me and browse/play online games wherever I want. I can currently do the browsing on my phone (which the company pays for anyway), and I could use my phone as a modem for my laptop but it would be taking the piss a bit if I was constantly MUDding using my company mobile as a modem :P
which is totally what she said
This article shows the interesting dynamics of corporations, but I think the bigger story here is that Intel has been trying to push WiMax for years and years now. WiMax on every laptop was supposed to happen in 2005! And one of the original benefits of WiMax was supposed to be that the operators could run it on unlicensed frequencies - which would avoid these types of licensing issues. But it's not at all clear that WiMax will win in the end. Intel still has to drive the price point low enough for there to be mass adoption, and they need many carriers have to adopt the model before consumers will care. It's a classic case of the chicken and egg problem.
Its strange that 10 years ago I went out and bought a Psion/Viacom FAx modem that let me hook up my then ultra modern Ericsson T10 to my laptop, I spent a good year using that card with a couple of 0800 internet providers (Orange were not charging for 0800 numbers at the time if I remember) giving me practically free mobile internet access, then it all changed, for data you were charged extra (quite a significant amount) and 0800 numbers ceased to be free. There is nothing like a step backwards to put things into perspective.
OT in the same vein, has anyone noticed that in the UK, since they introduced competition for directory enquiries (replacing 192 with 118XXX services) those services have deteriorated and are much more expensive than the original? Not to mention all the free offerings have disappeared! - dial 0800600900 (talking pages) for a really good laugh, its a free number that used to offer a directory service, now it includes a message saying it has been bought / moved and you can dial 118XXX for the improved service.... at 49p per connection and 13p per minute.
...here in Sweden we now have virtually complete 3G coverage, and 3G phones and 3G computer modems are selling like hotcakes. It will catch on in the US as well once you have good availability of broadband-speed solutions (I.e. forget EDGE) at decent flatrate prices.
However, a large percentage of computers sold today are laptops, and most of those laptop users would love to have wireless internet access wherever they go. If someone actually provided wireless internet access that was so cheap, simple, fast, and had such good coverage that you could always be connected everywhere, people would use that service.
This is the second time the FCC has undertaken rule-makings to expand access to what was once called the "Instructional Television Fixed Service" and is now called the "Educational Broadband Service."
In a nutshell, 32, 6-MHz channels (the same size as OTA television channels) were set aside in the 2.5 GHz band for nonprofit, instructional organizations. Many of these channels are used by colleges and universities and some public and private school districts, to distribute programming from a central location to receivers scattered across the reception area. Catholic school programmers have been big users of this spectrum to distribute programming from diocesan centers to parochial and private Catholic schools. In some markets many of these channels lie fallow; in other markets, mostly the large citieis, all or most of them are in use.
In the mid-80's the FCC was pressured by pay-TV operators who distributed services like HBO over microwave to enable them to expand their operations into the ITFS bands. Unused spectrum on eight of these channels was licensed for commercial use as the "Multichannel Microwave Distribution Service," and potential pay-TV providers were encouraged to work with any existing instructional licensees to share their bandwidth. I worked on license applications for this service for a number of clients as well as submitting applications myself in partnership with some private investors. The MMDS licenses were awarded by lottery, and our partnership actually won a "construction permit" for Fort Collins, Colorado. Nevertheless we never built anything with this permit, nor did most of the other entrepreneurs looking to develop services in these bands. All the financial models were premised on rolling out multichannel pay-TV services in markets where cable had yet to be built. The rapid expansion of cable into the major markets (from which they had previously been banned by FCC regulation) destroyed the market for microwave-based pay-TV services. The regulatory process took so long that by the time the FCC had changed the rules, the economic rationale for the service had begun to wither away.
Considering that the ITFS dates back to the 1970's, I'd say Sprint and Clearwire would have had to be incredibly blind not to know that these channels were licensed to instructional television services.
My guess is that the FCC again wants to see some kind of negotiation between commercial and educational users of this block of spectrum in hopes of utilizing it more fully and subsidizing educational services.
I just hope Thirdpipe isn't anything like Thirdspace, full of spam-creatures that seek to destroy real content.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.16
.... Any one of three competing telcos in the same local area (tower or HAPcom [coverage ~250SqMi] http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skycom.html) could provide (in the USA) voice, content [TV/Internet/radio/...] ... services for every home and business in the area.
... (33%), exploding maned space craft (33%), health-care we're 40th, education (maybe 50th) .... It is not in the interest of the CSA-welfare economy for US to maintain/sustain leadership in anything at any cost.
... of the CSA do not want competition. The CSA do want tax-dollar-welfare handouts, cheap labor, hostage customers (iPhone, another example), illiterate religious fervor, and strong population control defense.
It appears that a few folks should read some about "802.16" [RTFC: Read The Fycking Content].
When you do not know the technology, you can always reference/consult wikipedia as a good start point.
Using spread spectrum, frequency hopping, and reasonable allocation of what should be well managed (not private/corporately controlled) public resources
From 1997 (http://www.interdigital.com) to present (IEEE and others) I have read about WLL/WiMAX/..., the technology impressed me, but our Corporate States of America (CSA) never allowed any real telecommunications competition anywhere in the USA. The proofs are many FCC giveaways. We (The USA) ranks about 25th in telecommunications infrastructure, functionality, and services in the global economy. At least telecommunications [TEK-infrastructure] is keeping pace with our collapsing bridges, dams
The FCC, politicians
!HAVEFUN! This ain't flame-troll, it is reality for US, though shit folks.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?