Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The 700MHz Question

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the just-give-it-to-me-for-pirate-radio-stations dept.

mstrchf07 writes "The FCC will soon be auctioning off the rights to use the 700MHz spectrum for wireless communications, with the winner being able to choose the direction of wireless services development in the US. With stakes this high, is the playing field fair, and are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?"

5 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. I think someone has a sig relevant to this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    specifically:

    In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce.

    If you don't get why that is amusing and appropriate - this about the nature of the Soviet Russia jokes, and what that says about the US.

  2. Total bandwidth? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I understand the article correctly, it would seem that 700 Mhz spectrum would only give you 15 MB/s of available bandwidth if it used similar compression techniques to 802.11g. If, as the article suggests, this spectrum were to be used for some big WISP, maybe Google, it wouldn't seem to me to be very viable as the available bandwidth would be split amongst LOTS of users in order to keep it cheap. Now, UMPCs and mobile devices conceivably need less bandwidth, but then, isn't that what we have wireless phone service for?

    It seems to be like this article is a bunch of meaningless speculation about Google's plans for being a ubiquitous WISP.

    --
    My blog
  3. Re:We need google to buy it by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The question isn't really whether whoever gets the spectrum is evil, but rather how well their interests align with those of the user base (you and me). Google is in a rather special situation because 1) they are not a network provider (like Verizon and Comcast, whose goal is maximize revenue from - yet minimize investment in - infrastructure), yet 2) google is not a normal content provider, either - mainly they provide links to other content, since their main product is advertising. What this means is that google has a unique business interest in encouraging new services - especially data services - that (i.e.) Verizon does not.

    Here's the best paragraph from the article:

    Will Google buy the spectrum? They certainly have enough spare cash to do so. If they do, it seems unlikely that they would operate the network themselves since it's a long way away from their core business. Instead, they would be likely to sublicense it to other players with the four conditions they originally hoped the FCC would impose [ensuring open services and open networks].
    If this were to happen, I think it would be a good example of the free market working as intended. US cellphone companies are destroying much of the value of the spectrum they control in order to serve their own narrow interests (e.g. charging hundreds of dollars per megabyte for SMS messages). Since google's business model provides more value to more people, google has more cash on hand to win the bandwidth auction. With any luck this could all work out just right.
  4. Re:We need google to buy it by nine-times · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well I would like to see Sprint get it since they are currently the least evil of the cell companies in the US.

    Sounds a bit like saying, "I want to sell my soul to Mephistopheles because he's the least evil demon in hell!"

  5. Re:I think someone has a sig relevant to this news by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it is an interesting use of the joke. First, Yakov Smirnoff's version of the joke was usually to have the reverse of America, but have the American version make sense, but the Russian version paint a bad picture of Russia. The GGP post reverses this, having the Russian thing make sense and the American be corrupt. Since the joke is about reversal in the first place, reversing the reversal is in itself a bit funny.

    Also, the jokes were originally meant to be a bit dark and ironic, and then used as a Slashdot cliche they were usually ironically ironic, resulting in a sort of nonsensical whimsey. Now, another layer of irony is added, almost returning the joke to its original sense, but I would say not quite to its original sense. So much irony has basically made it a non-joke, and simply a piercing critique of current US policy. It's pointing out that as ridiculously backwards as Soviet Russia was, it still may have been less backwards than we are now.

    Now, did I really have to explain myself like that?