The 700mhz Spectrum Auction In Perspective

YIAAL writes "Writing in Popular Mechanics, Robert X. Cringely looks at the upcoming auction of the 700mbz spectrum, which is currently used for soon-to-be-defunct analog TV. 'Why are all these companies so excited? Because the 60 MHz of spectrum that's about to be auctioned is the last prime real estate for mobile communications that will be available in the U.S. for decades to come ... Some pundits (that would be me) think Google will bid to win its spectrum block, then will trade that block to Sprint/Nextel for some of that company's 2.5-GHz WiMAX licenses that are far better suited for data.' Plus, the prospect of offering unlicensed data service in the 'white space' between existing broadcast channels."

Comments

Check your summary please!

[mcvos]

What are we talking about here? Millihertz? Millibitz (or whatever the 'z' in mbz means)?

Re:Check your summary please!

[nacturation]

What are we talking about here? Millihertz? Millibitz (or whatever the 'z' in mbz means)? Missed By Zonk.

Re:Check your summary please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like many typos to me. Well done, Slashdot!

• 700mhz (missing space, all lower-case)
• 700mbz (missing space, all lower-case, wrong letter)
• 60 MHz (correct?)
• 2.5-GHz (dash instead of space)

Re:Check your summary please!

[bobl]

Dot vould be megabits-per-zecond, don't you know?

    - L. von Drake

Good Times

[usul294]

I'm anxious to see what develops from this. The 700 Mhz band should have a fairly large range (greater than normal wi-fi), but less than a radio station for example, given the same power. I'm interested in what each of the bidders wants to use the band for, most likely for providing wireless internet. At first connection speed might be a problem though, but still acceptable for casual browsing and e-mail. maybe not fast enough for real-time youtube.

Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[RingDev]

And what would happen if one of the bid winners licensed existing TV stations to broadcast over some specific frequency just as they already are? Sure, it's not innovative or revolutionary, but the broadcast TV model has already proven profitable, and there are a LOT of people in the US with out HD TV's/Converters. Seems like there could be a rather solid market out there to continue the status quo, at least for a while until the HD penetration numbers rise.

-Rick

Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[greensoap]

Based on the auction rules, there is nothing limiting the potential licensees to which technologies they use the licenses for. (Except maybe the blocks designated for public safety.) The cost of each license is probably enough to prevent it. The cost and the geographic limitations that is; most licenses are fairly small (designed for potential Commercial Mobile Radio Services [CMRS]) the exception being Block C in the Upper 700 MHz with is broken into 12 geographic area groupings.

Traditional analog broadcasts had higher power ratings and larger coverage areas than allowed by the new licenses. The reasons being that the broadcasts were all one direction and the broadcasters were attempting to get the signal to as many people as possible. The new licenses are designed with CMRS in mind. CMRS doesn't use the coverage TV broadcast did, the more coverage the more transmitters requiring a piece of the network. Whereas, TV there was just one transmitter. Because CMRS is all about two way communication, it makes more sense to keep the each transmitting network small and have many of them. That way you can let, say, 20 people transmit within a range of frequencies on 10th avenue and one block over allow a different set of 20 people to transmit within the same range (the network serving 40 people across the two city blocks). Increase the power rating, hence the range, now the same geographic area only serves 20 people because there isn't enough spectrum space to serve more within the frequency range. (Okay, very crude example with very little actual engineering. Somebody familiar with current GSM standards could provide a much more accurate example. But, this should convey the concept.)

Because the licenses were designed with CMRS in mind, the power ratings are lower and the size of each "cell" is smaller. In order to have effective TV broadcast you would have to buy many of the license to ensure you didn't cause interference over another licensee's geographic coverage.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for a broadcasting company to spend large dollars on new licenses when those broadcasters are all transitioning to digital TV. It makes more sense to just go with the transition and tell consumers that it isn't their fault because the government made them do.

Basically, there is really nothing in the auction rules themselves, but economically speaking it would not be a wise business decision.

Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[hedwards]

In general I agree, I've played around a bit with my wee small antenna and an atsc tuner, and the results are far better than I was getting with an ntsc tuner. The picture is crisp, clear and consistent in a way that the analog signal never was in this room.

But anybody that lives out in the boonies, the places where getting quite a bit of static are going to be screwed over if they haven't gone satellite.

Overall though, I think that the people that are screaming to maintain the status quo and the horribly inefficient allocation of the airwaves for an increasingly small minority need to think about the common good, and consider whether they have a right to forgo paying for a subsidized box if it means depriving everybody of the use of the spectrum.

It would in many ways make more sense to subsidize a basic satellite package for people that live far enough away from the nearest broadcaster than to maintain the system as it is.

Even if the spectrum is bought out by a company that misbehaves in the end, we still have an additional choice to make, whereas previously we had one fewer option. And that's a good thing either way, it gives a chance for a new service to sink or swim.

Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to be rude here but...
Um...you just came up with a solution to a problem that isn't even there.
I'm not sure you know what the transition from Analog broadcast to Digital broadcast is all about. And you are not alone.

Nobody is required to switch over to HD. At no point has the analog to digital transition had ANYTHING to do with whether or not anyone owns an HD capable television.

It is merely to stop broadcasting broadband, innefficiant ANALOG signals in favor of narrower, more efficient DIGITAL signals SPECIFICALLY OVER THE AIR. This is still free, over-the-air, "broadcast" TV.

Digital TV does not mean HD...in fact, all standard channels will be broadcast in Digital Standard Definition with SOME choosing to simultaneously broadcast SD and HD at the same time.

Like I said, you are not alone. I have heard MANY people fighting this because they don't want to go out and buy a new TV when, in fact, TV's sold over the past 10+ years are digital capable anyways.

ANY TV with RCA plugs, or SVideo, or Component, or HDMI, or Coaxial are digital capable. If you can hook up a satellite receiver or cable box or a gaming console, you are digital capable. Now raise your hand if you don't fall into that category...then explain to me how you can't justify upgrading your 1960's era TV yet you have a computer with internet access. And if you are THAT stubborned, FINE (each to his own)...the converters are cheap...remember the RF converter you hooked your old school Nintendo to your TV's cable input with?

It's time!
You're ready!
Now let's start reaping the rewards of a more efficient system where there is MUCH more bandwidth open for more content and it takes FAR LESS power to do it in.
Level the playing field so the consumer benefits from the wider variety of content available from more sources instead of letting cable and satellite companies tell us what our options are and charging us whatever they want for them.
You will no longer have to pay satellite and cable companies extra fees for access to local channels.

Enjoy.

Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[evilviper]

But anybody that lives out in the boonies, the places where getting quite a bit of static are going to be screwed over if they haven't gone satellite.

Actually, you've got that exactly backwards. Those on the fringes who get ANY picture on analog TV stations, should expect to get a perfect ATSC signal. It has been proven in practice a great many times (a web search should turn up plenty of accounts). And more to the point, broadcast radius is, in fact, ATSC's biggest strength over DVB.

Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV?

[evilviper]

the broadcast TV model has already proven profitable,

And is becoming less profitable by the day...

and there are a LOT of people in the US with out HD TV's/Converters.

This is just stupid. People don't have converter boxes now, but by 2009 damn near all of them are sure to, on the government's dime. Not to mention that digital will give you the opportunity for 4+ channels in the same amount of spectrum, and that the crappy quality of analog broadcasts is what drove many of the people in the country to PAY for cable/sat.

I think, however, you could be on the right track... It's an interesting situation we find ourselves in. The 700MHz spectrum is going to be for sale for private use, yet it was a fairly recent decision to auction it off, so every digital TV tuner made will still tune to those frequencies. With enough money, you could build a private (digital) TV network that is tunable with standard equipment all consumers already have, yet not being subjected to the FCC's regulations of broadcast TV...

I've also thought about satellites... 700MHz is a high enough frequency to penetrate the atmosphere, can be tuned to by cheap and widely installed DTV tuners, and common UHF antennas happen to be rather high gain, especially at 700MHz... Would it really be possible to have a satellite broadcasting an HDTV signal from space, that could be picked up by anyone in the hemisphere, just by pointing their cheap UHF antennas towards the sky rather than the horizon, and hooking it up to their HDTV tuners? The broadcast power needed from the satellite's solar panels might make it impractical, but it's still a very enticing thought. The receiving equipment would be much less expensive than a dish & LNBF, basically free because it is already commonly available. And from the viewer's perspective, what about the prospect of a strong (and free) TV signal, anywhere you are?

Transcript of the trade

[192939495969798999]

Google: Hey Sprint/Nextel, trade you my 700 Mhz for your 2.5Ghz!
(awkward pause)
Sprint/Nextel: nah.
(awkward pause)
Google: ... damn!

Re:Transcript of the trade

[mounthood]

Google: Hey Sprint/Nextel, trade you my 700 Mhz for your 2.5Ghz!
(awkward pause)
Sprint/Nextel: nah.
(awkward pause)
Google: ... damn!

Google: OK we'll just buy you.

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=Google+Sprint

Helloooooo, McFlyyyyyyy! The coupons!

[Anonymous Coward]

They already have the coupon system ($40 off a tuner, and surely someone will make a simple one for less than that).

You're a few years too late in your complaint.

coupons here

[bobs666]

You can get 2 $40 coupons at this site

Re:coupons here

[Maximum Prophet]

You can sign up for the coupons, but the converter aren't available yet... Also I'd like to know if Tivo will support one or more of the converters. I have an analog Tivo with lifetime subscription. I'll be mighty pissed if they don't support a digital converter using an IR blaster like they do with Satellite converters.

Re:so whatabout my grandma?

[ch-chuck]

Yeah, it really sucked when they switched records from 78rpm to 33rpm - my grandfather had to go out and buy a whole new turntable and stylus, bastards.

Re:so whatabout my grandma?

[planetralph]

This is already implemented. Not quite as extravagant as you propose, but there are coupons for up to 2 TV's per household that will cover close to the full cost of a digital tuner. People without cable or satellite have priority for some of the coupons. The only problem is the people who need the program are the ones who won't be tuned in enough to know that things are changing until all the coupons are gone. Maybe advertising on TV will help.

https://www.dtv2009.gov/

The 700MHz Band is great for data

[VeriTea]

The article is just plain wrong when it states that the 2.5GHz band is superior for data, it is not. Throughput is primarily dependent on bandwidth, so 20MHz at in the 700MHz spectrum will effectively carry the same amount of data as 20MHz in the 2500MHz spectrum. The big difference is that Google can provide coverage in rural/suburban areas that have relatively low demand for throughput with far fewer sites. In urban areas Google can pack the sites just as closely together and will still be better off then they would with the 2.5GHz spectrum because they won't have to install in-building repeaters to ensure good coverage inside many of the buildings that would otherwise require such a system.

Re:The 700MHz Band is great for data

[morton2002]

The better propagation characteristics do have a drawback: limited frequency reuse. The cells will have to be spaced further apart to avoid overlap, resulting in more users communicating with the same tower. Furthermore 700 MHz doesn't have the scattering properties of higher frequencies that allows for multipath signal combining, which is tremendously useful in non-line-of-sight situations. This means that coverage in dense urban environments will have to rely exclusively on the partial propagation through buildings, which may leave shadows on a coverage map. These quiet zones could be targeted with additional tower placement, if not for the frequency reuse problem.

Re:The 700MHz Band is great for data

[shadow_slicer]

Wrong. OP is correct. All things being equal you can fit the same amount of data in 700-720MHz as in 2.5-2.52GHz. As another poster mentioned the difference is not capacity, but instead reusability.

Re:The 700MHz Band is great for data

[slonik]

The article is just plain wrong when it states that the 2.5GHz band is superior for data, it is not. Throughput is primarily dependent on bandwidth, so 20MHz at in the 700MHz spectrum will effectively carry the same amount of data as 20MHz in the 2500MHz spectrum.

As someone who professionally designs cellular networks I can tell you that for data services 20MHz at 2.5GHz is much better than the same 20MHz at 700MHz. The data rate is determined not only by the channel bandwidth but also by the amount of interference that is generated by neighboring base stations. This interference depends on the RF propagation characteristics. At 2.5GHz the RF signals die off much faster with the distance than at 700MHz. As a result your interference levels will be lower at 2.5GHz. The downside is, of course, that cell coverage area of each individual base station will get smaller and you have to deploy them at substantially higher density. Rule of thumb: for voice you are coverage limited and you want your 700MHz (or 850MHz, ATT, Verizon) and big cells. For data you want small cells and high frequency band (2 or 2.5GHz).

Just my two cents from the tranches.

Re:so whatabout my grandma?

[geekoid]

Except they didn't intentionally break the 78 setting on your grandpas record player.