Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=Google+Sprint
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
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.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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.