Slashdot Mirror


FCC Will Auction 5G-ready 3.7-4.2GHz and mmWave Spectrum (venturebeat.com)

Jeremy Horwitz, writing for VentureBeat: Speaking at the Mobile World Congress today in Barcelona, Spain, U.S. FCC chairman Ajit Pai today announced that the commission is prepared to quickly make 5G-ready wireless spectrum available in two critically important ranges: Mid-frequency, including both 3.5GHz and 3.7-4.2GHz ranges, and high-frequency, including 24GHz and 28GHz millimeter wave (mmWave) ranges. Pai suggested that the FCC is ready to auction the spectrum in the near future, but requires Congressional cooperation by May 13 to make the 24GHz and 28GHz allocations happen.

15 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm wondering how I'm getting screwed.

    1. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead of being opened for use, like the wifi bands, it is being auctioned to monopolists who will mostly sit on it to keep prices high. That is how you are getting screwed.

    2. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by Brymouse · · Score: 2

      I'm a ham radio operator making extensive use of the 3.4-3.5 GHz (9cm)band. This story is useless without defining 3.5 GHz better.

      If it's 3550-3700, that's not the ham band and we're ok. But what band is it? 3.5 is lots of things to lots of people.

      Our link across Tampa Bay

    3. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      Instead of being opened for use, like the wifi bands, it is being auctioned to monopolists who will mostly sit on it to keep prices high. That is how you are getting screwed.

      You can buy it. Call Pai and place a bid.

    4. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm a ham radio operator making extensive use of the 3.4-3.5 GHz (9cm)band. This story is useless without defining 3.5 GHz better.

      If it's 3550-3700, that's not the ham band and we're ok. But what band is it? 3.5 is lots of things to lots of people.

      Our link across Tampa Bay

      Details haven't been posted yet. They should turn up here: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctio...

    5. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well IIUC this is related to the satellite spectrum that tmobile requested the fcc quickly auction off before the two new LEO constellations go into operation.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:Whenever this guy tries to hurry something up by lkcl · · Score: 2

      I'm wondering how I'm getting screwed.

      30GHz or thereabouts is the coiling / uncoiling frequency of human and animal's DNA. i haven't investigated plants. so 24-28 Ghz will basically hit the resonant frequency of our DNA. what do *you* think is going to happen? my recommendation: if you live near a 5G celltower that operates on anything that's a multiple of those frequencies (half-wave, quarter-wave), don't fuck about, SHOOT it.

  2. Re:Why net neutrality is a non issue by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're comparing apples (aka "raw speed") with zephyrs (access to specific web sites at that raw speed without paying specifically for reasonable access that web site).

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. What's the real need ? by Big+Bipper · · Score: 2

    5G will enable you to stream 4k or 8k to your phone. Do you really need 8k on a six inch screen ? Can you see the difference ? 5G will require micro cells with a tower on every street corner. To service those towers you'll need fiber to every street corner ( although that would help fiber access to the home ). Think about how much it would cost to run fiber to everywhere you now can get a 4G signal, when it's too expensive for telcos to provide most rural areas with real broadband. 4G is overkill for the needs of most phones, namely voice, and messaging, and sufficient for streaming movies in better resolution than you can see on a six inch screen. How many consumers will willingly shell out more $$$ for a phone that is only marginally better than the one they have and then only in the city core where 5G has been rolled out ? Your expensive 5G phone would fall back to 4G when you travel outside the city center. The money required to provide 5G in the most densely populated areas would provide far better service if instead were spent on infilling more 4G towers so the existing bandwidth could be shared among fewer customers.

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    1. Re: What's the real need ? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Not really. At the end of the day, the radio modem still needs fiber or high-speed copper... the closer to the end user, the better. You will never, ever be able to do the equivalent of stream raw 4k HDMI over 5G in an urban area within a cell larger than a single room, let alone a single-family home or apartment. There just isn't enough spectrum. At gigabit+ speeds, 5G just means you can get away with running a fiber bundle to the curb & distribute it the last thousand feet to outdoor fixed antennas & relay it onwards to indoor wired networks feeding room-sized femtocells. Best-case, your service provider hands you a pile of boxes that "just work" (using whatever crap wiring the house already has) that allows nontechnical users to pretend there's no difference between "the internet" and something their nerdy cousin calls "a LAN".

      What I really want to see, though it'll never happen: the FCC partially taking Wifi "channel 14" from Globalstar via eminent domain, then making it legal for Americans to use... but ONLY indoors, with limited power (say, 10mW output, 50mW EIRP) and no channel bonding allowed, so we can have ONE GODDAMN 802.11n channel that neighbors in dense urban areas can't fuck up and ruin(*).

      2.4GHz is going to be with us for a long time due to cheap IoT devices, and channel 14 is the only place LEFT in the legacy wifi spectrum that hasn't been ruined by hopeless channel-bonding and neighbors who insist upon (or allow Comcast and AT&T) splattering across channels 1 through 11 with excessive power.
      ---

      (*) Made usable throughout the house by putting something like an old Ubiquiti access point in each room using 5Ghz or ethernet for backhaul. Traditional 802.11n client-initiated handoffs [via 802.11r] don't work well/at all in home environments... devices rarely implement 802.11r properly, and most consumer wifi gear is completely oblivious to it. Ubiquiti moved the logic to the access points... they all compare signal-strength notes, and mutually spoof each other to trick dumb clients into connecting to the best one anyway. I think Ubiquiti took away that feature last year for some crazy reason, but I like to hope they'd bring it back if they had a compelling reason to do so.

  4. Less Auctions - More Unlicensed by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the FCC was really serious about getting WISP's off the ground, They would ditch these auctions that tend to go to the highest bidder and sit unused and open the Spectrum to unlicensed, WISP only, long range use.

    Most WISP's out there today are using the 2.4 and 5GHz bands because their unlicensed, unfortunately their also used for WiFi traffic as well. These wreak havoc with WISP equipment especially in dense populations, and it's only getting worse as cable companies started packing 5GHz WiFi in their modems that broadcast 80MHZ of spectrum regardless if wireless is being used or not.

    A clear, WISP Equipment only, spectrum block would not only help out smaller wireless ISP's with their Point to Multi point deployments, but also give business other options of connectivity between buildings besides fiber runs, since most point to point microwave setups are built around Point to Multi-point Wireless Spectrum allocation.

  5. C Band (3.7-4.2 GHz) Satellite Interference by Junior+Samples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's very likely that this decision will cause interference with C Band satellite signals which down-link in the 3.7 - 4.2 GHz band. These satellites provide video feeds to television stations and cable systems world wide. Strong ground based signals in the same band will overload the low noise LNBF on C Band satellite TVRO dishes.

    This is very disturbing since I recently pulled the plug on cable and rely heavily on Free To Air (FTA) video feeds from C Band domestic satellites in the USA. https://www.lyngsat.com/freetv...

    1. Re:C Band (3.7-4.2 GHz) Satellite Interference by flargleblarg · · Score: 2

      Screw it. I'm waiting for the C++ band.

    2. Re:C Band (3.7-4.2 GHz) Satellite Interference by rjmx · · Score: 2

      Mention of that frequency range is what attracted me to this article. Long, long ago (well, 30+ years) I was a satellite communications guy posted to a remote earth station, so I'm well aware of the dangers of using this band for anything but satellite comms.
      Why on earth does the FCC want to do this? Or have the major users given up C-band?

  6. Re:Why net neutrality is a non issue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    Half a gigabit speeds over wireless and people are running around like crazy worried about their wired carriers ?

    So it'll be Verizon, AT&T and XFINITY Wireless pulling net neutrality shenanigans instead of... Verizion FiOS and AT&T DSL/Fiber and Comcast XFinity wired services?

    At most, you're looking at adding Sprint or TMobile as one extra option.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!