Slashdot Mirror


Congress Wants Federal Government To Sell 1755-1780 MHz Spectrum Band

GovTechGuy writes "With next year's reverse auction of TV spectrum not expected to sate the wireless industry's growing demand for mobile broadband, lawmakers are turning up the heat on the Obama administration to auction the 1755-1780 MHz band, which is considered especially desirable for mobile phone use. However, the Pentagon and other federal agencies are already using those airwaves for everything from flying drones and surveillance to satellites and air combat training. They say it would take ten years and $18 billion just to vacate the band so it can be sold."

20 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Nice fight! by Exitar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Capitalists vs Warmongers!

  2. Lobbyists by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Informative

    lawmakers are turning up the heat on the Obama administration

    lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congress.

    Fixed that for you.

    Hint: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076 [AT&T profile at opensecrets]

    1. Re:Lobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is the meat of it, Etherwalk. But it's worth noting there really is a bandwidth shortage. I was part of the "band clearing" effort for the relatively disused 1710-1755 Mhz AWS band and it's extremely painful.

      http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2013/sixth-annual-progress-report-relocation-federal-radio-systems-1710-1755-mhz-spectrum-ban

      The military, and other Federal agencies, both buy and maintain equipment that lasts virtually forever and the cost of new equipment that uses more modern bands is enormous. In many cases my employer simply purchased it for them. It doesn't matter if the FCC has sold you the band, if using it is going to interfere with life-saving traffic you have to have a "fix" that is better than sending them repeated violation notices.

      Much like with Linux, the basic problem is with the users. 8 years ago voice traffic was the largest use of a wireless carrier's spectrum with 15-25% shaved off for GPRS-EDGE (or basic 3G UMTS) data comm. Now voice is a trivial component, and "phones" spend hours a day streaming Netflix and doing other things that consume 20x more bandwidth than a mere voice conversation. While Moore's law has applied nicely to handset capabilities, the pace at which spectrum opens up has not kept pace. LTE makes better use of the new spectrum, but it already requires a much better SNR than it's predecessors, there is no jump to "LTE2" that will save us from being this spot again in a few years, and people already want high-def video on their tablets.

      So, actually "now" is the right time to push for freeing up some more spectrum so it will be available in the nick of time, just like the 3G spectrum for Apple's IPad explosion wasn't.

    2. Re:Lobbyists by runeghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bingo. I know the mainstream media is useless, but on places like slashdot, it would be nice if people would stop pretending that congresscritters are anything but sock-puppets for their corporate owners.

    3. Re:Lobbyists by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Or you know, Cable/DSL/Fibre end points could start coming with a relatively low-power cell so that the customer's cell phone used inside the premises doesn't take up capacity on the closest tower cell.

      As long as half of the population goes crazy over the radiation from cell towers, you'll have a hard time to convince them to put such an "evil" thing into their own home.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Lobbyists by kermidge · · Score: 2

      1755-1780MHz? That seems a mighty thin slice to somehow magically fix the huge need for bandwidth.

      Seems to me spectrum is quite finite, but the demand for bandwidth is or will be considerably more than what is available.

      Others have pointed out that one thing to help is to do wired to localities, then low-power wireless access points, whether it be an home, a bar or a cell tower. Reserving a small slice of spectrum here and there for emergency systems, for instance, seems reasonable. (I'll leave aside other uses; that's a political discussion, not engineering.) Available spectrum is too valuable to hand over for kitten movies or whatever. The current system for doing wireless is short-term crazy and long-term impossible.

  3. Screw that. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Make it public airwaves and give it to the ham radio operators. It's time they gave back some spectrum to us that has been stolen over the years.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Pentagon use by PPH · · Score: 2

    Years later, after you fire up that shiny new iPhone, the Air Force suddenly realizes they forgot to re-tune a batch of HARM missiles. Fortunately, nothing of value was lost.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. I hate this policy by scribble73 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hate this policy, of selling our public bandwidth to private corporations. I just hate it.

    Airwaves are public. The Government should not be selling property that belongs to all of us. Leasing or licensing bandwidth for some specific period of time is one thing, but transferring ownership is another. We should not "privatize" this.

    I am dismayed to see so many politicians and technical types just accepting actions like this, without any policy discussions taking place -- beyond closed-door meetings at the FCC, which are not shared with the public.

    tt77

    1. Re:I hate this policy by Dputiger · · Score: 2

      What are you going to do with a slice of spectrum? For that matter, what would *I* do with a slice of spectrum? And what would "public" ownership even mean in this space?

    2. Re:I hate this policy by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

      I can understand "selling" (Licensing in the current auctions, though I am unsure if there are any time limits on this "License") portions of a spectrum so that companies/organizations/agencies know they can rely on the spectrum being there for their exclusive use. But portions of various spectrum should also be devoted for unlicensed public use. Just look at how Wi-fi and various wireless devices exploded on the market after the FCC pulled their collective heads out of the sand and allowed low powered transmitters on select frequencies. I imagine if the same were done for even a tenth of the spectrum in higher power modes (from mobile phone level (0.5W) to CB Radio (4W)) the wireless market (both voice and data) would explode with products and services. The protocols would have to be compatible (or at least not interfere with each other) across the board but the various 802.11 flavors proved that is doable.

    3. Re:I hate this policy by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 2

      Let's see. With the slices of spectrum I've had access to I've: Used it for networking (802.11), used it for controlling my computer (BlueTooth+other protocols), listened to radio broadcast on it (AM+FM), used it for operating the sattellite I helped build (AX.25) ...

      Other possible uses include baby alarms, remote car keys, walkie talkies, ...

      Of course, some of those slices of spectrums are licenced to private organizations, some are more or less free for all, and just one of them was ours to play around with as we deemed fit.

      As time goes by a it will only rise in price - I for one am only happy that my government doesn't sell of the airwaves, but lease them out instead.

  6. Headline is wrong by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should read:

    Congressional 'contributors' want federal government to sell 1755-1780 MHz Spectrum band

    1. Re:Headline is wrong by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      It should read: Congressional 'contributors' want ...

      At this point it should just be understood that "congress wants" means "congressional contributors want". Anyone who doesn't realize that is either too bought or too naive to have an intelligent political discussion with.

  7. Figures by guttentag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    lawmakers are turning up the heat on the Obama administration to auction the 1755-1780 MHz band

    I figured it was only a matter of time before Congress pushed to sell off 1776 to the highest bidder. They've been pushing to sell off the Post Office's business for the last 6 years by forcing a financially sound organization into insolvency (see paragraph 3 here). Why not sell off American Independence itself and Common Sense while they're at it? It's like we gave the keys to our house to service employees and they're auctioning off the contents to lobbyists through the front door to the highest bidder, keeping the profits for themselves.

  8. Re:Frequency bands for highly directional signals by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    I like the idea but think this is too low of a frequency. Just some loosely connected numbers off the top of my head: the 900MHz ISM band already allows you 36dBm (4W) EIRP. That's 26dB above the 10mW max total radiated power you suggest. At those frequencies (actually 1.6GHz) I've used 85cm dishes that have 20.6dBi gain. In other words, high enough gain antennas/arrays would be awfully big at these frequencies.

  9. Re:even better by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Evil people want to be evil as much as possible. .

    Please tell me you are joking. Or that you are 12 years old and feel that comic books are a accurate portrayal of the world or something. Nobody, other than a tiny fraction of one percent of insane people, wake up in the morning and actively set out to do "evil" things. Most people try to do what is good from them or a group of "their people". That group can be a family, country, religion, race, or even a company. Obviously in the case of brutal dictators, they are more concerned with their own benefit. But even so, they don't believe what the do is evil. They just feel what ever they do to keep power is a necessity to stay in power.

  10. Spectrum allocation by snsh · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's startling when you look at a chart of frequency allocation and see how much is allocated to DOD, maritime, and obselete tech. Meanwhile you have everyone and their neighbor competing over 11 channels for Wifi.

  11. Re:even better by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    Stalin murders 10s of millions of his own people. Mao. Murders even more than Stalin.

    US "invades" Vietnamese ostensibly (according to its detractors) to prevent Communism from spreading (the domino theory), and the inevitable massacre of civilians which would occur. The later argument was laughed at until the "Killing Fields" became known. (Yes the Khmer Rouge were Cambodian and were put down by the Vietnamese. Good for them!!)

    The US props up dictators for all sort of Realpolitik reasons: the same as did/do the PRC (China), the USSR, France, England and all other political powers before (and those that will come). Some dictators (the Shah of Iran were far better than their successors).

    And this makes the US the "most violent oppressive nation on earth." Iran, Turkey, Syria (even before the civil war), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Myanmar are less oppressive than the US? What!?!

    Fuck Bush, Fuck Obama. I say that without fear without the slightest concern that the US government will care in the slightest.

    The US isn't perfect, but "the most oppressive?" Are you saying that because you disagree with the Iraq war? Yes, we should have acted differently but what about the mistakes of the UN, Saddam Hussein and Russia in the build up. (The UN by not giving a damn about it's sanctions and lines-in-the-sand being ignored , Saddam bluffing and acting like a blow-hard, and Russia giving Saddam aid and *apparently* moral support, indicating the US was bluffing and wouldn't invade.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  12. Re:even better by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    ...the same as did/do the PRC...

    Why did you use an italic 'L' there? Oh...

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.