Broadcasters Accuse Telecom Companies of Hoarding Spectrum

angry tapir writes "The National Association of Broadcasters, asked by the US Federal Communications Commission and some lawmakers to give up television spectrum for mobile data uses, has fired back by accusing several other companies of hoarding the spectrum they hold. In recent weeks, the NAB has gone on the offensive by suggesting that several spectrum holders, including Verizon Communications, AT&T and Time Warner Cable, have not developed the spectrum they already have."

Comments

Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

IP addresses can be increased by just adding numbers to the end. It's only a problem because some vendors aren't willing to adopt a new standard because they're too cheap to invest the money.

Electromagnetic spectrum is limited by nature. It's a physical constraint.

Set them all on fire...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And hand the spectrum over to the next generation of 802.11b/g/n-esque applications.

Even confined to a couple of really sucky blocks of spectrum, the success of no-license-to-deploy, inexpensive wireless data standards has been extraordinary. Why not murder a few bloated, feckless, incumbents and hand over some proper spectrum for this proven and extremely useful application?

Re:Set them all on fire...

[grumling]

Or, better yet, how about licensed radios that actually have some range to them? To get a license, you have to take an operator's test, not as technically-oriented as a HAM license, but more difficult than swiping a credit card at Best Buy. Then the last mile problem becomes YOUR problem, not the ISP/wireless phone company.

The wireless industry keeps telling congress that if they just get a little mo' (little mo' spectrum, little mo' tax money, little mo' market share) they'll be able to cover everyone, even the most rural areas, with super-fast Internet service. The problem is, they have no financial interest in rural areas. A tower is a fixed cost. If a tower is in a metropolitan area, that fixed cost is likely to be lower, mostly because towers can share back-haul resources. In rural areas, there may not be access to back-haul fiber. So it either needs to be built at great expense (X2 if you want 5 9's uptime), leased (at great expense), or just skip the whole thing and lie on the coverage map.

And since every carrier, now save 1, is capping data at 5GB/month, there's really no way rural broadband will truly be available from the wireless carriers.

FCC let us build our own networks!

Re:Sounds a lot like the IPv4 crisis

[foniksonik]

There is infinite supply of spectrum if you are willing to invest in equipment to use it that way. All frequencies can be split many many times. Data companies are actually more capable of this than broadcasters as the receivers are updated more frequently and consumers more willing to buy in if there is a reasonable improvement.

Re:Who is actively developing?

[RattFink]

The answer is neither. The real true innovation is far more likely from ISM bands then any of the licensed ones.

Re:700 MHz band

[PhrstBrn]

Because the companies who bought it have no intention of using it, they just want to prevent somebody else from using it and developing a product that would hurt their bottom line.

Seperate spectrum from carriers

[ArhcAngel]

I believe we need a system where the towers (AKA spectrum) are owned & operated by a regulated entity and that a standard (GSM/LTE) is agreed upon. Then the carriers can sell service and value-add to differentiate themselves.

Re:700 MHz band

[0100010001010011]

It should have been use it or lose it.

You have 5 years to have something on the market with this spectrum that reaches at least 50% of Americans or it goes back on the auction block.