Slashdot Mirror


FCC Postpones Spectrum Auction Until 2016

An anonymous reader writes: 2014 was supposed to be the year broadcasters would be allowed to sell off their unused spectrum to mobile carriers. That got pushed back to 2015 in December, and now the Federal Communications Commission has bumped it to 2016 in the face of a lawsuit from the National Association of Broadcasters. The FCC says the legal briefs aren't even due until January 2015, and it will take them until the middle of the year to review the documents and respond in court. The delay is just fine with the NAB, but probably bad news for anyone hoping that spectrum would help to improve mobile communications in the U.S. any time soon.

3 of 31 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why is it a 'sale' ? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3

    I don't get your point. A spectrum auction is where the FCC sells licenses to use bands of spectrum. I don't know where you got the false notion that these companies owned the spectrum itself.

  2. Bad news for OTA folks by speedlaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "spectrum" the Govt wants to auction is "found" by "repacking" the remaining TV over the air broadcasters. Among the great idea are multiple stations using one channel (So we get two crappy streams on one frequency instead of the pretty HDTV we were promised) and other stations going back to VHF-Lo (RF channels 2-5) which don't work all that well without big antennas and have issues with interference and digital. The NAB is unhappy because the "re pack" means that many stations will lose broadcast area. If you are a cable co, or a broadband provider, OF COURSE you will want to do anything you can to cripple the "cut the cord" folks....you can't ban OTA broadcast, but you can cripple it. There is debate as to how much money the broadcasters will get in compensation, but there clearly isn't anyone looking out for the OTA viewer. I like some broadband too but this is the new titan fighting the old titan...

  3. Re:Why is it a 'sale' ? by mirix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The licenses are transferable, and give the right to use the spectrum. How is that different than the spectrum itself? It's a fiction so of course it's a license and not the 'physical' aether.

    The problem for me is, instead of a lease going back to the state, which then leases the spectrum to someone else... some firm profits handsomely from selling a license for a fictional monopoly on a common good. That's kinda fucked.

    I absolutely understand the need for licensing, else there would be mayhem. But it could be done in a better way. I guess it's the same idea as $1M taxi medallions. Those should be leased and non-transferable too.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11