Look at the small percentage of spectrum that has been classified as "unlicensed" and not auctioned off for exclusive use by a big corporation. Look at what has resulted - WiFi, Bluetooth, DECT cordless phones, and wireless ISPs (WISPs) which are the only source of high speed Internet in many rural areas. Does anyone really think the FCC has erred on the side of reserving too much unlicensed spectrum, or that it has not been put to good use?
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation would require all future spectrum allocations to be auctioned to the highest bidder. There seems to be the belief that some white knight like Google will come forward and pay billions for spectrum and then set it free for public use and innovation. Or that companies like Intel and Microsoft and Google and Cisco are getting a free ride by using this "free" spectrum. In reality, we the public are getting the benefit. It is our spectrum, and sure we can sell off most of it to big cellcos like AT&T and Verizon and Clearwire to help pay off the national debt, but we need to keep a small portion public.
If anyone is thinking that little rural WISPs operating on a shoestring are going to all chip in a few dollars to keep a little spectrum unlicensed, and collectively will outbid the big cellos, that just isn't going to happen.
One argument I see is, we already have WiFi and Bluetooth and DECT, why do we need any more unlicensed spectrum? Same as what drives the cellcos. We need more public spectrum for higher speeds and more users, and we need spectrum below 1 GHz to penetrate trees and buildings. Otherwise, some people in less populated areas will never get high speed Internet. Some in industry and the media want to call services based on TV whitespace spectrum "Super WiFi", and while this may be a cool sounding name, it doesn't help anyone understand what it will do or why it is needed. Currently the only unlicensed spectrum below 1 GHz that can be used for hardcore non-line-of-sight transmission is 900 MHz, specifically 902-928 MHz. That 26 MHz isn't enough to provide high speed service to more than a handful of subscribers, and there is so much interference from stuff like smartgrid and adjacent paging bands that 900 MHz isn't very useful. The freeing up of TV whitespace spectrum is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a little more spectrum that can go through trees and buildings. AT&T and Verizon can have their exclusive use licensed spectrum in the 700 MHz band, but the public needs to save a little for nonexclusive, noncorporate use.
A second argument I see being made, is that companies that make devices using WiFi and other unlicensed bands are making tons of money and should be paying for use of the spectrum. But there is a chicken and egg problem here. Look at your cellphone. AT&T and Verizon buy 700 MHz spectrum, put up LTE towers, and have phones designed for them. But will there be LTE roaming? Apparently not. The phone and spectrum are for exclusive use on their network. Would that model of innovation work for everything? No. Look instead at your 802.11n wireless router, laptop, tablet, or even your proprietary cellphone which connects to WiFi hotspots. All that equipment is interoperable, in fact it works internationally. The spectrum and the technical standards were defined in an open, non-exclusive manner, and as a result thousands of companies innovated and brought products and services to market that benefit us all immensely.
A third argument is that certainly a white knight moneybags corporation will come forward and bid against the big cellcos to keep some spectrum unlicensed. Or some collective group will do so. Is this like selling naming rights to a stadium? I guess it could happen. Like the consortium that bid on the Nortel patents to keep them from going to a patent troll. But it seems more likely that the high bid will always be from a bidder that wants exclusive use. This is a very dangerous game. it is like selling off Yellowstone or the Gr
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation would require all future spectrum allocations to be auctioned to the highest bidder. There seems to be the belief that some white knight like Google will come forward and pay billions for spectrum and then set it free for public use and innovation. Or that companies like Intel and Microsoft and Google and Cisco are getting a free ride by using this "free" spectrum. In reality, we the public are getting the benefit. It is our spectrum, and sure we can sell off most of it to big cellcos like AT&T and Verizon and Clearwire to help pay off the national debt, but we need to keep a small portion public.
If anyone is thinking that little rural WISPs operating on a shoestring are going to all chip in a few dollars to keep a little spectrum unlicensed, and collectively will outbid the big cellos, that just isn't going to happen.
One argument I see is, we already have WiFi and Bluetooth and DECT, why do we need any more unlicensed spectrum? Same as what drives the cellcos. We need more public spectrum for higher speeds and more users, and we need spectrum below 1 GHz to penetrate trees and buildings. Otherwise, some people in less populated areas will never get high speed Internet. Some in industry and the media want to call services based on TV whitespace spectrum "Super WiFi", and while this may be a cool sounding name, it doesn't help anyone understand what it will do or why it is needed. Currently the only unlicensed spectrum below 1 GHz that can be used for hardcore non-line-of-sight transmission is 900 MHz, specifically 902-928 MHz. That 26 MHz isn't enough to provide high speed service to more than a handful of subscribers, and there is so much interference from stuff like smartgrid and adjacent paging bands that 900 MHz isn't very useful. The freeing up of TV whitespace spectrum is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a little more spectrum that can go through trees and buildings. AT&T and Verizon can have their exclusive use licensed spectrum in the 700 MHz band, but the public needs to save a little for nonexclusive, noncorporate use.
A second argument I see being made, is that companies that make devices using WiFi and other unlicensed bands are making tons of money and should be paying for use of the spectrum. But there is a chicken and egg problem here. Look at your cellphone. AT&T and Verizon buy 700 MHz spectrum, put up LTE towers, and have phones designed for them. But will there be LTE roaming? Apparently not. The phone and spectrum are for exclusive use on their network. Would that model of innovation work for everything? No. Look instead at your 802.11n wireless router, laptop, tablet, or even your proprietary cellphone which connects to WiFi hotspots. All that equipment is interoperable, in fact it works internationally. The spectrum and the technical standards were defined in an open, non-exclusive manner, and as a result thousands of companies innovated and brought products and services to market that benefit us all immensely.
A third argument is that certainly a white knight moneybags corporation will come forward and bid against the big cellcos to keep some spectrum unlicensed. Or some collective group will do so. Is this like selling naming rights to a stadium? I guess it could happen. Like the consortium that bid on the Nortel patents to keep them from going to a patent troll. But it seems more likely that the high bid will always be from a bidder that wants exclusive use. This is a very dangerous game. it is like selling off Yellowstone or the Gr