Slashdot Mirror
700 MHz Auction Begins Tomorrow
necro81 writes "On Thursday, after much speculation and wrangling, the FCC will begin auctioning licenses to the coveted 700 MHz band that will be vacated by analog TV in 2009. The NY Times has a good summary of the players (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Google, et al.), how the auction will work, how Google has already scored an open networks victory, and what it could all mean for consumers. The auction will go on for several months, but you can keep tabs on the bids at this FCC site."
I plan to buy the frequency band myself, and just endlessly broadcast a black-and-white image of myself, accompanied by Russian martial music.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
So will that frequency once it is used interfere with the Slashdot forum server processors that must be running at 700Mhz? :-D
Just...kidding...this...forum...is...lightning...fast...
"Know but never fear the consequences of your actions."
I know the article says that their main goal was to make sure that whoever does get the license keeps the airwaves open to a "wider range of hardware", but I really don't see any reason why Google couldn't get serious and really try to bid for some air space.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.
:-P
I want to be wrong, but I want credit if I'm right.
I hope Google can get enough money to outbid. Maybe sell "Gbonds" so they can pay absurdly low yields on borrowed money
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
That's how this bandwidth right should be determined. None of this auction crap. Just let the corporations and the FCC pick their most athletic (least nerdy?) employees, and pit them against each other on the Eliminator(tm). Of course, the FCC 'gladiators' would need catchy pseudonyms like "Mega Hurts" or "The Regulator". The first corporation to actually finish the course without crying your throwing up, wins.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
or was this always private and I missed that memo? I remember setting up a TV with the ol' rabbit ears and tin foil and it worked for "free" no problems. If now we're being charged for what we as a people owned isn't that the government taking our property? I mean yeah it's not a physical thing and it's the FCC's job to regulate it, but it's there also a law about government not taking what's yours without compensation?
That would be a hoot and a kick to the economy. We'll sell this then give EVERYONE part of the sale price back as compensation for the reclaimed property.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Let big business pay for the privilege of using our spectrum. This is a good way to raise revenue without raising taxes. I would argue that we don't charge enough for spectrum. It's our most renewable resource.
This isn't the ANWR drilling we are talking about dude. What do you want, lowest bidder? Seriously, you are king of the world...how would you handle this?
What exactly did you lose?
THL phish sticks
Ask the Ramones
"We Want The Airwaves"
9 to 5 and 5 to 9
Ain't gonna take it
It's our time
We want the world
and we want it know
We're gonna take it anyhow
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves, baby
If rock is gonna stay alive
Oh yeah-well all right
Let's rock-tonite
All night
Where's your guts
And will to survive
And don't you wanna
Keep rock n' roll music alive
Mr. Programmer
I got my hammer
and I'm gonna
Smash my
Smash my
Radio
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves
We want the airwaves, baby
If rock is gonna stay alive
...and it should be known by now
The government builds a highway, and then opens a rest area. They sell restaurant/gas/convenience store space to the highest bidder. Then the company that leases the space charges more for a Big Mac or a gallon of gas than in the city. Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.
They should take that spectrum, and award it based on the public good that will come of it. How low a price will you charge for the services you provide for that spectrum... not how much can we, the government, make off of it.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
Don't pin your hopes for lower-cost, widely available internet access on this auction.
In the current political/business climate in the U.S. the chances that nothing good for the consumer will come from this auction are excellent.
It's not just about the auction itself. Imagine for a moment a telco doesn't win the spectrum. The telcos still have the experience and access to the senate and congress to write regulations that increase the cost of doing business with the spectrum. Recent history is filled with examples.
-VOIP regulations, patent litigation parties
-Limited consumer access to bandwidth.
-Limited throughput.
-NSA shenanigans. The get out of jail free cards have already been issued.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Real news will be hearing who wins, or continues the next round.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Auctions of bandwidth are a terrible idea, and shows how biased towards big money interests the government has become, rather than what is in the best public interest. Radio spectrum, considering it is a limited resource, should be given out based on what is the best public interests, and what most promotes free speech, free expression and diversity, not to who has the most money. The auctions basically play perfectly into the hands of telecommunications monopolies who have the resources to win them, and thus control telecommunications infrastructure, with an impact on the ability of the public to freely express itself. I would rather see the FCC require a completely open network and much more choice and competition, especially in the case where the construction of the network would be best coordinated or is capital intensive, the developer of the network perhaps should be a chartered non profit corporation which then sells access at cost to anyone who wants to utilise the network. This would provide a interconnected completely compatable nationwide, seamless network which can be accessed anywhere, and would asusre anyone could use it to innovate with new interesting and novel services. One company would not be able to limit and control what can be done with it. This would assure a diversity of choice and allow many different small service providers who do not have massive resources to get involved with providing services, promoting innovation and a rich and diverse assortment of services.
If the government was not so corrupt and beholden to large corporate interests who want to monopolise and control all assetts and resources for its own gain, basically creating a monopoly which serves a few private interests rather than the public interest and promotes diversity and innovation, we would probably have more choice, diversity and competition. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, for instance in electric utilities, since it is so capital intensive, but in this case they should be regulated and chartered by the government to work in the best public interest rather than in the best interest of corporate profits. What is interesting about the wireless plan, although a publicly owned non profit corporation would build the physical network, it would allow a vast range of competition and services to be offered over it, enabling a diverse marketplace.
Has an auction by the FCC been so closely watched by the general public, I believe.
Of course, by 'General Public' I mean 'A lot of geeks', but I can still see this as one of the most important auctions of our lifetimes.
Or you could just leave it unregulated, and give the spectrum to whoever wins the war to have the most powerful transmitter.
I'd love to see this actually tried for once. With todays technology, power isn't the only way to get past noise.
Started days ago...
Your head a splode
This isn't the ANWR drilling we are talking about dude. What do you want, lowest bidder? Seriously, you are king of the world...how would you handle this?
DHSS. Use the same technology in our wireless cards. Make this a truely public spectrum. There's always a technological solution to a government problem. Why sell what we can use for free?
It could be given out to, in the case of broadcasters, to strictly locally owners assuring a decentralised media that is not controlled by large corporations. Remember the FCCs ownership rules? They prevented a company from owning more than a handful of radio stations and more than one or two stations in a particular market, assuring a broad diversity of sources of information, news,etc. Now the FCC has pretty much gutted these rules, and a few large corporations now control most radio outlets (clear channel), tv outlets, and now broadcasters will be allowed to own newspapers as well, furthering the consolidation. Allegedly we have free speech, but the means to free expression is increasingly being controlled by a few large corporations who, due to their rapidly expanding power and how they own government and seem to be above the law, the laws are made for them and government is a puppet that they own.
There was a push to get low power FM passed through, which would not have interfered with larger stations and which would have been required to be licenced to only small locally owners, but was opposed by corporations, on a complete lie that it would interfere with their large high power stations, which is a lie since the lpfm licences would require an engineering study to assure they didnt. The corporations just didnt want people freely expressing themselves and are hell bent on controlling all forms of communication.
for those who are looking for the auction it's number 73 on the fcc website.
I was going to get her a gold band with a few sub-carat diamonds , but now I'm thinkin' "ya know... what woman doesn't want a 700Mhz band?"
And because I REALLY love her, I'm thinking of upgrading to maybe the 701 or even 702 Mhz band... yeah yeah, it'll be a couple months salary, but what the hell...she's worth it.
I remember setting up a TV with the ol' rabbit ears and tin foil and it worked for "free" no problems.
It was still private. 60 or so years ago when television first appeared, the spectrum was licensed to various TV stations (though with some restrictions on that license of course). It "belonged" to them in the same sense as the spectrum will "belong" to whoever wins the auctions. The fact that broadcast TV is "free as in beer" to you doesn't mean it was "public" in the sense that you're talking about.
but it's there also a law about government not taking what's yours without compensation?
Hmm.. that's kind of a strange distinction. "The Government" is supposed to be "the people" in a democracy. I'm not sure what you're really driving at here.. who's the "you" in this sentence, and why isn't "the you" represented by "the government"?
AccountKiller
(I'm Canadian, so this doesn't affect me beyond the influence factor, but I'm curious none-the-less.)
Where does the money go? The FCC will raise the money, but where does that substantial bankroll go? Does it just roll into the federal budget to be dished out as the government sees fit with the rest of the money or is it earmarked for a specific use (debt repayment, for example)?
(And, heck, with the Canadian government about to do a similar auction, if anyone has the answer in regards to Canada, feel free to share it as well.)
The radio spectrum is NOT public. Even the citizen's band has transmitting power limits (4w for AM and 12w for SSB)[reference], and amateur radio bands are the same way.
Think of it this way. Public forests being sold so that oil can be drilled wrecks those forests, right? The oil isn't there anymore afterwards and all the pollution from the oil drilling and construction processes damages the land so that it is no longer as valuable. Unused spectrum meanwhile is completely empty until someone is permitted to transmit on it. Then it is occupied. After the permission to transmit expires or the spectrum segment is no longer used, it's still there and just as good. It's available to be used again.
Above all, what would you do with it and, in all fairness, how do you know your purpose is more noble or better for the common good than what the big businesses have come up with?
Is it still a "false dichotomy" if you have five unrealistic options? Have you discovered the false pentchotomy?
The problem with your argument is these auctions basically give control to the wealthiest corporate interests, which do not at all correspond with what is the best interest of the population or which promotes individual self expression and free speech most. It allows these wealthy interests to control channels of information and communication and hinder innovation and free speech. We are best making sure as many independant voices can be heard and making sure as many people can innovate and use the radio waves how they see fit rather than having a few large corporations controlling them. You can do this while also assuring that the radio stations do not transmit over each other and chaos does not result. The purpose of licencing is to prevent chaos, not to give exclusive control to large corporations, which it has become. The airwaves should not even be owned but licenced, the public should own the airwaves and determine how they are utilised, since they are a limited resource. AS for how we choose how they should be utilised, why not let the people choose through an election how they are run, and why not require, for instance, some public access stations to be provided which would give airtime slots to local groups, organisations, individuals etc. Quite frankly having a lottery is a better way of determining who should have access to broadcast resources, then giving it to whoever has the most money. With the wireless networks we could charter a non profit corporation which would construct the physical network, and then sell access at cost to service providers and consumers. This would assure the great innovation and diversity in services and greatest choice and freedom for consumers. You assume the only ones who want to use the airwaves or have the right to are corporations, when instead they should be used for and by the greater population for the best public interest. We should not have a situation where you have to be a millionaire to have a voice, and the more money you have, the more control you have over the news and information that flows through the airwaves. Wealth should not give a person a greater right to free speech.
I may be thinking of Eminent domain (United States)
The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
But, I highly doubt that that would work in this case because it's not physical property and as so many have pointed out, we never owned it to begin with
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Quoth Gandhi_2 "Let big business pay for the privilege of using our spectrum. This is a good way to raise revenue without raising taxes."
Your logic train has derailed. The more you charge business of any kind, regardless of size, for their raw material the more they charge for their finished product. This is how business works.
So while your sentiment of "Charge those big business bastards out the wazooo!" *sounds* good all it means in reality is that the finished good will be more expensive for you to buy!
Presto! The Government has just created a hidden tax ON YOU and you were cheer leading them all the way!
Doh!
It's called the 2.4Ghz ISM band. One can argue that leaving it partially unregulated (there are power caps to avoid the problem described in the grandfather post) has been the biggest boon to personal radio use since the invention of the CB radio. Wireless internet as we know it today is all thanks to the FCC leaving a tiny sliver of spectrum open to whoever wants to use it (within reason).
I read the internet for the articles.
That's all well and good and you won't find too many people on my side of the fence that disagree with that concept.
What bothers me is that outfits like AT&T and Verizon that already own large swaths of the cellular (850mhz) band are going to be allowed to gobble up large swaths of the 700mhz band. Nobody has asked them to justify why they need this much spectrum. One would think that with the pending shutdown of AMPS that they'd have lots of free spectrum in 850mhz to do whatever they'd like with.
Why the hell are we allowing AT&T and Verizon to further cement their stranglehold on the wireless industry in the United States? If you believe that the airwaves should be used for the public benefit then you should want to see a more competitive market for wireless services emerge. This isn't going to happen as long as we allow two large companies (combined with two smaller ones) to completely dominate an industry. We should be taking steps to bring more companies into this market, not further cementing the position of the existing ones.
What would I do differently? At the very least I would require a justification of the existing use of the spectrum that they have and detailed roll-out plans. I'd also exclude AT&T and Verizon from the 700mhz band in any market where they already have cellular (850mhz) licenses. Let the carriers stuck with the poorer-performing PCS (1900mhz) band have the first shot at this valuable space. I'd also mandate stricter rules on what they can do with these bands, including a full adoption of carterfone rules and the elimination of their practice of locking people up into long term contracts with hefty termination fees.
Did you know that in some markets AT&T owns more then 50% of the available wireless (cellular, PCS and AWS) licenses? If you combine them with Verizon in those markets the two manage to own 75-80% of the available spectrum. What's wrong with that picture? AT&T previously justified by it by saying they needed to run three (AMPS/TDMA/GSM) networks. What's the excuse now?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think you're confusing transmitting and receiving. You can receive on whatever frequencies you care to. Swap out a few parts to an old ham radio receiver and it will totally pick up 700MHz band and you can listen to your heart's content.
Transmitting is a different story though. Even public radio stations have to pay (albeit less than commercial radio stations) in order to broadcast and they are assigned a unique frequency on which to do so.
All they need is to get the auction up to about $150 billion to cover the cost of injecting money into the economy to alter the seemingly unavoidable fate of recession in America.
Since Google will get into Cell Phones, I don't understand why the Internet on cell phones is so expensive...
Edward Palonek resources and information http://palonek.blog.ca/
I've got auctionsniper all ready to go....
Except for one thing. Taxes are rarely voluntary, while purchasing finished products is almost always voluntary (the exceptions are Food, Water and Shelter).
No hidden tax. You consume something you don't need, then it isn't really a tax, is it? Nor is it really "hidden" since it is included in the cost of the item you want.
If you want to complain about "hidden" taxes, how about employer paid payroll taxes. Most people never see the cost of these taxes paid on their behalf.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Please feel free to suggest another way of allocating the spectrum that isn't one of the five options. That is what I asked.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
We should start charging big business for the 700-400nm band, think of all those billboards and displays out there!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Lets apply your argument to water rights:
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
I guess there are some strings attached to the 700MHz spectrum, like requiring open access. Is there any requirement to allow arbitrary, power-limited transmitters? That would be equivalent to the current 2.4GHz ISM rules.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I would like to begin my reply by imploring you to use linguistic features like "paragraphs" to organize your thoughts so that they are easier to read.
The airwaves should not even be owned but licencedAs the article summary notes:
... the FCC will begin auctioning licenses to the coveted 700 MHz band...As for the rest of your comment, it is as poorly thought out as it is written and organized.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
The simple fact is that no small company can afford to build out this spectrum. Google isn't a small company. I can also remember when Microsoft wasn't evil and IBM was.
I don't think Google is all that super good but I know that I am in the minority on Slashdot.
Yea I would love for Sprint to do better BTW. I feel they are the least evil of the Cell companies.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I use several wireless microphones that operate in the UHF 66 to 69 range, high 700 Mhz to low 800s. Is that part of the spectrum that's going to be "vacated" next year? Any other audio guys who know more about the impact, what gear I should be buying to replace the old stuff?
"The Government" is supposed to be "the people" in a democracy. I'm not sure what you're really driving at here.. who's the "you" in this sentence, and why isn't "the you" represented by "the government"?
"The Government" does not always (usually) operate by consensus, thus the need to protect (especially minorities) against uncompensated takings. More to the point, government often can be accurately modeled as a bunch of lying crooks.
One difference is that while water is water and there is no substitute, there are other frequency bands than 700MHz. It's not as if companies are being invited to bid for total control over all electromagnetic spectrum at once. And yes, don't you have water meters and water bills?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I thought it would be a good vehicle for low-bandwidth applications such as text searches and ad delivery, both of which are Google's forte. 700MHz is ideal for that, since the bands are small (20MHz) and they reach really far.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Thank god you are not reporters!
I think you just described about 90% of today's reporters.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"The Government" is supposed to be "the people" in a democracy.
That would be ideal, but since all of the government was elected by a minority of the people which doesn't include me, it can't really claim to be 'the people'. If you want real democracy you have to at least have a majority requirement before you allow it to enact any laws. Otherwise the presumption should be that the people don't want any more government, and everything should be left status quo until they do.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Still, I don't think the FCC will take Google stock as payment - cash only please.
Why would Google need to pay with stock? Google is a money making machine. Google has almost 14 billion in cash and short term investments on its balance sheet right now. They could likely raise two or three times that in a heartbeat if they wanted to mount a large bid.
And just for reference - Verizon only has 11.5 billion in cash on hand. Basically, they would have to team up with one of their nationwide competitors to outbid Google in a bidding war - something they likely would not want to do.
Let me guess: the government wants more money...
The problem is that Google isn't in a position to roll out radio towers all across the US. If they were to win the spectrum they would probably be forced to re-license it out to Verizon or somebody to get it to the actual consumer. ...ready to hire an army of contract tower-installers and contract RF/wireless data engineers (not 802.11 crap, I mean *real* wireless data engineers like me) to build out a network much faster than you think. And yes, they have plenty of money to steal employees from the national cellphone giants. But these jobs will not be permanent Google internal positions like you hear about on the web. They'll be strictly contract-term only, and meanwhile construction is going on, they will be building up a separate internal team to run the infrastructure after the first major install phases are complete.
I got the inside scoop, and am setting my self up for a fat contract project management gig for this. Hope it happens.
On a national level? Maybe not. But why has nobody considered the option of encouraging smaller (i.e: regional) carriers to come about? That's originally how the whole wireless market got going before we allowed the massive consolidation that happened later. There's no reason why somebody couldn't get the funds to win a regional license and deploy a network. Partnerships with similar networks in other markets could provide for nationwide coverage, more or less transparent to the end users.
I don't think Google is all that super good but I know that I am in the minority on Slashdot.I'm in the same minority. Google is already scary enough. I don't want to see them controlling the pipe as well. I'm glad they used their clout to force open access but I'd be leery of them as a service provider. I think the cable companies have shown us why having the service provider and content creation businesses under one roof is a bad idea. And, hell, that's half of what open access was about -- the carriers fought it because they'd rather lock you into their own sandbox then allow you to choose where you get content from. What makes you think that Google wouldn't have a vested interest in locking you into their sandbox? Just because their sandbox is better then Verizon's or Time Warner's doesn't mean that's a good business practice.
Yea I would love for Sprint to do better BTW. I feel they are the least evil of the Cell companies.Sprint, which is to say Sprint Nextel, can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. Back in the day when it was just Nextel I had an account. Constant billing problems. They'd cash my check but not credit the account, or (even better) credit the account without cashing my check. This went on for months. Each month contacted them -- each month was told that they were "upgrading" the billing system and not to worry about it.
Cut to a trip out of town. On a weekend. My cell phone gets shut off. Call them up. They claim I owe them ~$200. I say that's impossible because they cashed the check I sent them. They say they never got it. I ask if they can see all of the account notes from previous issues that were all their fault -- they say yes, but it doesn't matter, I owe $200. I ask them to turn me back on until I can get home and contact my bank to get the check images -- they refuse. I tell them to go fuck themselves and switch.
Three weeks later they contact me and admit it was their fault. I tell them it's too late and I've left. They then tell me that they will be charging me an early termination fee. Yeah, you shut off my service by mistake and then try to collect a termination fee when I leave? Go fuck yourselves!
Granted, that was a long time ago, and "Nextel" as opposed to "Sprint Nextel", but "Sprint Nextel" continues to send me collection notices, years after the fact. Each time I get one I call up the collection agency and tell them that story. They close the account and I don't hear anything for a few months -- at which time I'm contacted by a new collection agency and the process repeats. Sprint Nextel refuses to directly talk to me about it, because the amount is in "collections".
Anyway, I rambled on for a bit there. That was six years ago but it still gets my blood boiling to think about it. So, no, I don't think Sprint is the best carrier. I like some of their offerings and wish them luck with Wi-Max (we need a third pipe...) but I'll be sticking with T-Mobile for my cell service. They use some of the same business practices as the others, but at least they are the little guy. Plus you can get a better bang for the buck with them. I've got 1,000 minutes w/unlimited N&W for $39.99. Can't touch that anywhere else.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hi there, Was wonding if anyone new if this auction includes the upper half of the continent and if not will there be another auction for them crazy Canadians?
That's an interesting viewpoint, but only on the face of it.
Let's disregard the voluntary vs non-voluntary argument and look at this from the absolute necessities argument that you're presenting.
Unless you're living off the land in the hills building your shelter from logs and mud either you or the vendor of your three basics WILL use the services of a business. That business will be taxed by the government and pass that cost to you.
Food? Trucking companies, grocery stores, rail carriers, farmers, tractor dealers and manufacturers, irrigation system dealers and manufacturers, THOSE companies dealers and manufacturers.
Water? Treatment plant, water service, treatment supplies, cartage to get those supplies to the treatment facility, raw materials for making the pipe, raw materials for making the treatment supplies.
Shelter? The list here is endless. Building materials, building supplies, trucking companies, cement, rail carriers, logging companies.
Even living a 1930's lifestyle there is no practical way you are going to avoid doing business with a company who is being directly taxed by the government. There is absolutely no way you are going to avoid doing business with a company who does business with someone whose being directly taxed by the government. (2 Degrees of separation)
So unless you're willing to wear an animal skin loincloth and live in a mud hut there is almost zero chance you will not be impacted by the government running up the price of doing business.
Can anyone explain what is the fuss about this 700mhz deal? .. well .. unlimited?
Isn't spectrum
Suppose I buy some spectrum and want to use it for an analog TV network. Is that against the rules?
-Dave
Who ever said that the US was a democracy? Frankly, the concept of it being one scares the hell out of me.
Republic, people. The US is a republic, not a democracy.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
well said.
Um. No. Pay attention to one of my previous posts. Wireless spectrum is not scarce. At all. What is the problem here?
First of all, part of the deal here is that whatever they do with this spectrum has to be usable by the general public. The whole point is to have that spectrum used for new technology that the general public will have access to. Think of something like when the cell phone bands got sold off, and now we have cell phones. You can bitch all you want about cell phone reliability but the fact of the matter is that anyone with sufficient financial resources can set up a cell tower and just do it. It's not a monopoly in any sense of the word. Anyone's allowed in if they play by the rules, which just means you can't interfere with anyone else's use of the airwaves. So if you live out in the country, just get the proper licenses worked out, set up a tower and rock it. It's not like AT&T is going to break down your door and ask you to quit. It's just that if you look at the infrastructure around you and say that you're going to set up your own cell network with blackjack and hookers, there is a fantastically large cost to entry. Better to use the existing infrastructure and rent it from the big boys, as companies like US Cellular do here in Chicago. Or, hey! You can set up a tower and rent it to the big guys if that suits you. Again, it's not like this isn't publicly available tech, it's just that building these things and maintaining them is very expensive. Want a short-range solution? Use CB or something like that, and you're untouchable as long as you don't transmit too loudly. Better yet set up a ham radio repeater with a telephone connection. The ionisphere, literally, is the limit. Seriously.
What I really don't get about this little flamewar we've got going (it's a pretty civil flamewar so far, but you know), is how you can possibly look at this situation and feel shackled by it. Look at it this way. Before: completely empty 700MHz spectrum with no services whatsoever using it. After: something (we don't know what yet) occupying those frequencies that is necessarily mandated to be publicly available, and it might just be really cool. Why can't everybody just sit back and let themselves get excited about this?
Also . . . why don't you just buy your own damn spectrum? If you've got at least $10Bn lying around nobody's gonna stop you from doing that either. Maybe all the slashdotters will put up a few bucks each? (would have to be more than $10,000 each to reach that sum but whatever.) And then what? We'll do . . . nothing with it. Awesome.
A technological solution could be to partition it similar to airspace for airplanes. A land based transceiver would query an FCC server saying "I have N bytes I need to get to location XXX YYY, and the FCC server would see if anyone else was using bandwidth in that direction. You'd get a responce back saying either wait N seconds, or send your data on ZZZ MHz, using WWW watts, in direction EEE. After you sent your data, the lanes would be cleared for a response, then someone else could use that bandwidth.
If a mobile transceiver needed to contact the base station, it would listen for clear air, then send a standardized packet so the the base station could request bandwidth. If there was a collision, just use collision backoff algorithms like ethernet.
At the end of the day, the FCC would send everyone a bill for the bandwidth used. The cost would just around what the system costs to administer. They could charge people more during periods of congestion, and steep discounts when the system is quiet.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I find it interesting that nobody would ever think of campaigning on a platform of "status quo". Nobody is elected unless they promise "change". Everyone gets elected to "do something". Nobody ever considers the possibility that many things are actually OK the way they are, at least for a while. I strongly suspect this pressure to "get stuff done" is why our federal government has gotten stronger and stronger over the years. Government seems to have a tendency to expand its role and its powers to limits allowed by the government's founding framework (and then some).
In my opinion, much of what government does could be replaced with automation. Imagine data/evidence-driven public policy!
I wouldn't worry about it, unless you're planning on hooking up an RF amplifier to your mikes and broadcasting into the next county (which would be illegal for separate reasons anyway). Your widgets are probably broadcasting such a weak signal that it can't be picked up more than 100 feet away. So who's going to care if the frequency space you're using is now officially licensed to someone else? Nobody, unless you're so unlucky as to have a licensed user set up shop within 100 feet of your studio.
If you want to set up a wireless network, or make radio calls across the country of any type, using your own equipment, for as low a price as your imagination and skill will allow, and completely free of anything but common-sense rules of courtesy, just go study a few weeks and get your own personal radio license. You don't have to whine because MegaCorp won't provide you with a plug-n-play radio communication system that retarded monkeys could use at a price you think is low enough. Do it yourself if you don't like their rules, or price. Think of it as "open source radio." It's been around for a hundred years already.
Hmm, for a valuable resource a lottery system is unlikely to work well. If the market price is $1000 and the minimum application fee is $1, then if there are less than 1000 bidders it makes sense for a speculator to put in an application just in the hope of winning, and reselling the resource at its market price if it wins. And once you reach 1000 bidders, you have in effect reached the market price (pay p/1000 for a 1/1000 chance of getting the resource worth p). It seems saner to me just to let people bid for it upfront.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Well I never had any problem with Sprint but I can understand. What I like about Sprint is that they don't lock out applications on your phone. Verizon is about the worst and AT&T is not far behind. Small company doesn't equal a good company and T-Mobile is anything but a small company. They are huge in the EU. I have heard good things about their customer service but not so good on the coverage.
As to small regional carriers. Even a small regional carrier wouldn't be small. Smaller then say Sprint but still a huge company. Think back to those early days of Cell phones. They where expensive, coverage sucked, and roaming charges where mind numbing.
As to WiMax? I just don't see it being a replacement for Cable, FIOS or even DSL. It will be great for mobile and for areas that don't have other types of Broadband.
What we really need is more competition in Cable and broadband.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Up here in Canuckistan, there's a similar action coming up, I think next year (but please correct me if somebody knows different).
Still an auction, but the way it's going to work is, there's going to be ~2/3 of the spectrum that will only be available to new players in the market. So Rogers/Bell/Telus et. al. (AT &T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile for American readers) won't even be able to _bid_ on that range of the spectrum.
Still not perfect, but at least it keeps the current ISPs/Cell phone providers from combining to out-bid everybody else out of the game.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Now, some people have suggested that it should instead be allocated to "the best use" based on free speech or some other criteria. I don't really understand this argument at all. Is anyone really suffering from a lack of free speech because they don't have enough radio spectrum? Of course not. There's the internet, TV, radio, satellite radio, newspaper, the soapbox on the corner, etc. The best use is always going to be one man's opinion, the government is in no way qualified to make that kind of decision. An auction at least allows the best economic use of the spectrum.
Up here in Canada, we're having a similar auction this year. 40% of the spectrum to be auctioned will be open to bidding only by new players into the wireless market. I don't know why nobody could figure this out in the USA. If the (quite reasonable) goal is to open up competition, then set a block of the spectrum aside that none of the existing Telcos/ISPs can bid on. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/28/auction.html
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
All you have to do is pass a wimpy test and get your ham license. No more Morse code.
Here's what you will get to play with upon passing your exams.
Here is a nice, slightly dated(2003) frequency allocation chart showing who's got what and where.
I kept wondering why the FCC demanded analog TV be shut down next year. It all boils down to money.
You're assuming the systems are symmetric. It's more likely that the official licensees will have a far stronger transmitters than the ones in wireless microphones. The microphones won't interfere significantly with the licensees, but any licensee operating in that part of the spectrum will probably drown out wireless microphones over a fairly large area. Moreover, transmitters based on the "white space" detection that's been discussed recently would probably fail to detect such low-power signals and transmit right over them.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
If I only had mod points...
...I would destroy you all!!
Oh, yeah...and mod your response Informative...
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Thanks for the thought, but I'm not worried about stomping other signals, I'm worried about my several-thousand-$ wireless rigs all becoming useless when gPhone sets up a tower across the street. I have 10 channels of wireless going into the mix board now (2x AKG, 8x Sony WRT system)and I'll replace 'em if and when I have to, but HDTV already chased me from VHF into the UHF spectrum. If DTV chases me out of UHF, I just want to know where I've got to go next. I don't mean to flame, I obviously was ambiguous in my post, and want to clarify.
I have a couple of old 700mhz laptops I want to get rid of. How do I get them into this auction?
Well...how does your receiver distinguish between your 10 channels? Or between someone else's microphone of the same model across the street? There's probably some mechanism, no? So your receiver isn't going to pick up someone else's signal and think it's your own, yes? I'm guessing your problem is some kind of front-end overload in your receiver.
Off the top of my head, the cheapest solution is a filter to block their frequencies and pass your own, assuming they aren't exactly the same. If they are exactly the same, then maybe a high-gain directional antenna on the receiver pointed at the microphones. Either is a lot cheaper than thousands of dollars, but you need a radio engineer to make it work.
Quadraginta: I suspect he's worried about getting interference *on* his microphones, not his microphones causing someone else to have interference.
This depends entirely on how strong the licensed user is and what the licensed use turns out to be. If it were to be, say, an Wifi style device where you can get something transmitting in that band for $20 at Best Buy, there are going to be problems with wireless mics. In theory, I believe that you will lose the right to transmit with the mics on those frequencies, but that's unlikely to be an issue. I suspect that eventually, you'll start getting interference.
Shure has stopped selling anything in the bands that are being auctioned off. I was lucky enough to not wind up with any of my mics solely above 700 MHz (the Shure UB band is partly above, partly below) so I don't get screwed, but this auction is going to obsolete 10's of thousands of dollars of gear that's otherwise perfectly usable. You can already see it with a ton of Shure gear in the UA band showing up on eBay.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
The receiver and transmitter both have to be tuned to the same channel. Most wireless mic vendors provide lists of valid frequency combinations. As to "how do I not pick up the guy across the street", the answer is "you and the guy across the street make sure you're not on the same frequency." Any time I go into a theater, especially one where there are multiple theaters in a complex, I provide a list of the wireless frequencies I intend to use. The theater provides a list of the ones they already use. Then we negotiate until there are no conflicts....
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Yeah, I got that. I would check out first whether something as cheap as a combination of filters and/or directional antennas might work. Seems a lot cheaper than completely retooling.
Oh dear. Well, maybe consider directional antennas. A high-gain Yagi should only be about 8 inches across at 700 MHz. Hopefully you could make it high enough gain so it only picks up your signals, but with sufficient beamwidth so you only have to point it in the general direction of your stage. Don't know if it would work, but it's a cheap first try at a solution.
Yeah, it's not ideal, but there really isn't an ideal solution. Cordless phones sync the base station and the transmitter. You resync when the transmitter gets shut off or the battery dies. That's perfect for a home situation, but in a theater situation, if the battery dies, I need to have a stagehand change it and get the mic online again *FAST* and the receiver may well be several hundred feet away from the mic at the time.
In practice, it's rare to have problems of conflict between two shows. The only time you'd be in serious trouble is if you had two Broadway sized shows next to each other (each of which may well use 30 channels, and likely the *same* channels as the show next door). Then you may have problems finding enough valid frequencies. The most frequencies I've ever used at the same time is for my current show where I have 20 channels.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
So if I buy the spectrum, and can do with it as I wish, can I broadcast analog UHF TV signals?
J
Amazing. Who knew? And here I thought everybody on stage was just good at projecting his voice. Thanks for the interesting view into another world.
Shelter = primarily a one time cost (build)
....
Food = ongoing
Water = ongoing
Let's discard the Onetime cost (shelter) for the time being
Food and Water will have some VAT, which is mostly unavoidable, most of the solutions I've seen have to do with (p)rebates based upon the VATs that might be passed along, thus making the system not as regressive as it might seem.
Additionally, VATs tend to flatten out supply chains because each middleman adds inefficiencies into the system, and those people using the least amount of them will inherently be more efficient.
That being said, there are always going to be trade offs to doing something or not doing something. The current system is broken beyond repair, and needs to be replaced with something else. When I get a 1099 form from the IRS regarding interest earned on Tax overpayment credit there is something really wrong. (if you don't understand, you're not alone, which proves my point further). It is not only convoluted at, it is arrogant that they tax us on something they should never have taken in the first place.
If you think this is better than a flat vat tax on all goods, great! I don't. Sorry.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
watch the auction live:
http://www.optimalmarkets.com/fcc.html
I honestly think that Google should just bid the 4.6 billion on the spectrum and force it into open license. I would feel even better if they won the bid. I'm not sure what others viewpoint on this is, but if Google really does release the Android OS for cell phones and allows free access to the network by offsetting the costs with ads the same way it does with normal web browsing I would be happy. Free internet access any where I go as long as I have a cell phone? Sounds great to me. Any one who thinks displaying ads on phones would be too much of an inconvenience, I'm sure there will be adblock apps created just for this :p
They're supposed to be regulators, not a revenue generator for government.
+++OK ATH