Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Nearly Double the Available Broadband Wireless Spectrum
suraj.sun tips news that the Obama administration announced today plans to free up roughly 500MHz of the wireless spectrum for commercial broadband. From the Washington Post:
"The commitment backs a proposal by the Federal Communications Commission to auction off broadcasters' and government spectrum to commercial carriers that envision their networks running home appliances, automobile applications, tablet computers and other wireless devices. White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers said in a speech outlining the president's plan that freeing up more spectrum will spur economic growth through auctions of the airwaves and investment in wireless networks and technology. ... The FCC has proposed that 280 megahertz of spectrum come from broadcasters and other sources, 120 of which would come from broadcasters. The other 220 megahertz would come from the federal government's holdings managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration."
It doesn't give any specifications about what frequency ranges. 500 Mhz is a lot, if it starts at 0Hz, it's pretty much priceless... if it starts at 60Ghz... not worth very much at all.
As far as freeing it up.... if it's for commercial use, instead of for networking peer to peer, what good is it for any of us? The monopolies will buy it up, and fight over it, and bill us with a profit margin along the way, while we get crap.
Free up what used to be the UHF TV spectrum for peer to peer use, and we can do a lot to fix the last mile problem.
That's my 2 copper cents worth.
Why has Barack Hussein Obama still not released his birth certificate?
Because people like you would know the truth then and have to be murdered. He's saving your life.
How much are YOU getting charged to auction the spectrum off to the carriers? I don't get it. Especially since there actually is a lot of competition in the wireless market lately - it's worth noting that we're starting to see unlimited data plans on various 4G networks that rival the speeds and monthly costs of landline broadband.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Unless they somehow allow the 900/1800/2100 MHz bands to be used with the existing international standards, new frequencies will just lead to more market/tech fragmentation.
One thing that I have found concerning about this and other articles on this topic is that they make no mention of what actual spectrum is on the chopping block to be reassigned. I understand that to most people it means nothing, but I'm relatively both curious (and a little wary) of what exactly they're giving up for this. I guess it's the radio amateur in me that's terrified to lose spectrum (of course, it's not like they're going to be wanting any HF...but 10GHz? 1.2GHz? I think that spectrum might seem a lot more, er, succulent.)
These used to be TV channels. This is why we all switched to digital TV, to free up this spectrum. That process had always anticipated the spectrum would be used for wireless, cellular or broadband uses.
The process was started a good ten years ago, and signed into law in prior administrations, (yet in this all things to Chairman Mao world, Obama gets credit).
These frequencies are generally in the 700mhz band, below the 800 band used by some cell phones. These freqs have better building penetration and range than do the higher bands in the 2100mhz block often uses by cell carriers. Fewer towers cover larger areas, with better penetration. Its all good.
Especially in rural areas, the greater range makes sense.
But yes, you will pay for this spectrum AGAIN, after TV stations vacated it (did they get any money back?) the carriers will purchase the licenses, and eventually (don't hold your breath) put broadband and or cellular devices in this space, and charge you for the privileged of using it.
TINSTAAFL
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I guess that TV broadcasters didn't give the government enough money. I have a better idea! How about if a good sized chunk of that spectrum was made license free, like 2.4 and 5.8 ghz? Why should we give up "public airwaves" to the Verizons of the world to sell back to us by the kilobyte at high prices with data caps, etc. Look what's been done with the crumbs that the FCC has allowed us already!
I assume this is for the people in rural area's that don't have any internet to speak of.
Plenty of areas with no cablemodems. Rural countryside is great for wireless ISP service.
But wireless ISP service, to the best of my knowledge, is not running out of RF bandwidth.
So, at least for them, more bandwidth is a solution in search of a problem?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Yes, and you are correct. We could technically use wifi amplifiers to boost our 2.4GHz signal to a (frightening, costly, and horribly impractical) 1500 watts. However, no encryption is allowed in that case, even HTTPS.
Push em out of that juicy 420-450mhz slice o' spectrum.
Ok, I'm just trollin.. leave the ham's alone...
I think you're mixing up a bunch of different things. It's true that amateur radio licenses can operate on different frequencies than the rest of us and can transmit at high power levels on those frequencies. Their call sign is assigned when they get their licence and they are required to broadcast it at regular intervals while transmitting (among other rules). This call sign has nothing whatsoever to do with WiFi ssids.
No, digitalsushi was correct. There are additional privileges with 802.11.
Since they didn't pay any money for it in the first place, it's difficult to see why they would ever get some back.
So it's more efficient to put up giant transmitters and blast out a signal that can be accessed clearly from the fricking moon, across a mindbogglingly wide swath of the spectrum, than it is to only send the data to the people who are requesting it?
Maybe efficient isn't the word you were looking for?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Yes, but.
It bugs me that call signs are re-used. Olaf Pearson (I will not vouch for the spelling) was a friend of my fathers. He was actually employed, as a kid, in Marconi's workshop. His house in Mobile, Alabama had a room that might as well have been a radio museum when I met him some 35 or 40 years ago. He was absolutely ancient even then but it was a delight to watch him light up as he demonstrated a radio he'd built using a 5-gallon Leyden jar; the discharge of that oversized capacitor (just a burst of static, really) was used to send morse. (After a short demo, he let loose an ominous chuckle and said "We probably just knocked out TV and radio reception for a 5-mile radius!")
His call sign was W4NU; I still have one of his cards. Olaf is long since dead and someone else now has that call sign.
It always felt wrong to me that those early call signs weren't retired as the pioneers passed on.
The public took it back and they can lease it out again.
Unfortunately "the public" means "the government". So "the government" will auction the spectrum off to the highest bidder among its corporate bedfellows, and the real public "ie you and me" will have 1) absolutely no say in it and b) have to fork up another tax or fee to use "the public" airwaves.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They are taking 120 megahertz from broadcasters, which is equivalent to subtracting 20 slots on the DTV spectrum (where each slot can hold 3-5 channels each). What a crock. I don't want to subscribe to Comcast. They charge $60 a month, plus $5 for each extra TV, plus 6% tax on top of that. AND their prices keep going up and up. (Basically 2.5 times more than what I paid in 2000.)
And the government used taxpayer money - spending almost 1 billion to hand-out subsidzed converter boxes and eduation programs for the June 2009 DTV transition. So what? That money just goes to waste now???
Look at all these channels I get. FREE. I don't understand why they want to take it away. What's next? We lose our Shortwave, AM, and FM Radio too?
ABC
CBS
FOX
NBC
CW
PBS
PBSarts
PBSworld
PBSkids
MyNetTV
Univision
Telefutura
TBN
ION
Wellness Channel
thisTV movie channel
Retro Network
Global (foreign language shows/movies)
Link (foreign news)
MiND (mostly educational)
JCTV
Smile-of-a-Child Network
Qubo
IONlife
plus 9 independents showing syndicated (Rome, Star Trek, Deadliest Catch, etc) and movies
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
TV over the internet cannot be multicast
Bullshit. For example, The BBC does multicast streaming of both television and radio.
Yes, and it clearly states on one of their pages you must be on a "multicast-capable ISP." How many ISPs are "multicast capable" do you suppose?
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Well, when the government GAVE away, for free, those frequencies to networks
Say what? -1 Wrong. Every local station PAYS for their frequency. The FCC collects over a billion dollars each year from TV broadcasters, plus requiring broadcasters to SERVE the public by providing news, weather, emergency and government announcements for Free (rather than charge $50 a month like cellphone providers).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
They have more than a dozen ISPs participating.
So it's more efficient to put up giant transmitters and blast out a signal that can be accessed clearly from the fricking moon, across a mindbogglingly wide swath of the spectrum, than it is to only send the data to the people who are requesting it?
Of course it's more efficient, for most reasonable definitions of efficient. That's why broadcast stations were developed first, long before cable systems. You don't need giant transmitters, nor do you need to broadcast to the moon (though you CAN, if you want - try doing it with cable!). Broadcast is vastly more efficient for certain ranges of applications: the infrastructure cost is fixed (the price of the broadcast stations) and doesn't change with the number of subscribers, the system scales perfectly (if your users count changes from 1000 to 1000000 overnight it JUST WORKS - you don't need to get new servers/routers/contracts with your bandwidth provider). It has theoretically infinite upper user limit. It can serve rural users even if they have no connection with the rest of the world, and it allows mobility easily.
The important thing is to understand the strengths and limitations of broadcast and point-to point systems and use each where it makes sense: broadcast is best when the same data needs to be sent to a relatively large number of users, at the same time. When you want customized data sent to many small sets of users, at different times, point to point connections are better.
To clarify, here's an example: traffic data for a city is tailor made for broadcast: it's of interest to many users, it needs to be consumed as soon as it's available (when you drive you want the most recent traffic data, not yesterday's traffic), and there is little space for customization (and whatever of it there is, it can be done client-side). On the other hand, e-mail is really bad for broadcast, since you'd use the whole tower bandwidth to send data to a single user.
A slice of that spectrum was already given to Fire Departments. Effective 7/1
The game.
>>>after TV stations vacated it (did they get any money back?)
(1) My reading of the article is that this is a NEW taking of spectrum - channels 32 to 51 will be removed and leased to cellphone companies. (2) The TV stations that lost channels 52 to 69 were given new spots, so they didn't lose anything. Some of the poorer "neighborhood" stations received financial handouts to convert from analog to digital but that's it
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Since they didn't pay any money for it in the first place
-1 Wrong. TV stations pay the FCC over 1 billion *each year* for their frequencies. They are also required to be free-of-charge (i.e. they can't chage you $50 a mont like a cell company, or $1 a month like TNT, USA, et cetera). Providing free service is costly - just ask UPN or WB or CW or NBC. The first two went bankrupt and CW/NBC are on the verge themselves.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
DSL or Cable is about $20 a month for ~250 gigabytes. Wireless is much, much, much more expensive for equivalent 250 GB service. So how is wireless "great" for rural reidents??? Hell even satellite internet would be a cheaper option.
I have a friend whose dad is stuck on dialup. I looked at wireless but it's beyond his budget (retired). I also looked at satellite - not available. Meanwhile he has perfectly good phone and cable lines running to his house which could be used for internet. The Congress needs to get off its marble ass and MANDATE that he & other rural residents can get their lines upgraded to DSL and Cable internet service. This could happen in just a few months
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There are three new papers on this subject on the Whitehouse.gov site today -- one is a fact sheet, one is the Presidential memorandum on the subject, and one is Larry Summers' prepared remarks to the New America Foundation.
If one reads them one discovers that, as Larry Summers' remarks put it,
It's clear from this that the frequencies have not yet been found -- this initiative is essentially a command to the FCC to go out and find 500 MHz. Somehow. Somewhere.
To be fair, all the bad policies started in the Bush era, Obama now gets the blame for. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.