The 700mhz Spectrum Auction In Perspective
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 24, 2008 01:01 PM
from the kind-of-a-big-deal(tm) dept.
from the kind-of-a-big-deal(tm) dept.
YIAAL writes "Writing in Popular Mechanics, Robert X. Cringely looks at the upcoming auction of the 700mbz spectrum, which is currently used for soon-to-be-defunct analog TV. 'Why are all these companies so excited? Because the 60 MHz of spectrum that's about to be auctioned is the last prime real estate for mobile communications that will be available in the U.S. for decades to come ... Some pundits (that would be me) think Google will bid to win its spectrum block, then will trade that block to Sprint/Nextel for some of that company's 2.5-GHz WiMAX licenses that are far better suited for data.' Plus, the prospect of offering unlicensed data service in the 'white space' between existing broadcast channels."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Google et al. Want 700 MHz Auction Opened Up 170 comments
The 700 MHz spectrum could give birth to the much-anticipated third pipe, but phone and cable lobbyists are currently pressuring the FCC to sell companies like AT&T and Verizon our airwaves — in a flawed auction process — so they can hoard this valuable spectrum and stifle competitive alternatives to their networks. Google and other would-be providers are not taking it lying down. They want the FCC to mandate that whoever wins the auction be required to sell access to those airwaves, at wholesale prices, to anyone wanting to provide broadband Internet service. They also want anonymous auctions to prevent the giant incumbents from manipulating the results against small players (as they have done in the past).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Check your summary please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Check your summary please! (Score:5, Funny)
As Good as Dead (Score:2)
The _why_ this spectrum will be neither cheap nor open is in the quote "trade that block to Sprint/Nextel"
Sigh...
Good Times (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV? (Score:5, Interesting)
But anybody that lives out in the boonies, the places where getting quite a bit of static are going to be screwed over if they haven't gone satellite.
Overall though, I think that the people that are screaming to maintain the status quo and the horribly inefficient allocation of the airwaves for an increasingly small minority need to think about the common good, and consider whether they have a right to forgo paying for a subsidized box if it means depriving everybody of the use of the spectrum.
It would in many ways make more sense to subsidize a basic satellite package for people that live far enough away from the nearest broadcaster than to maintain the system as it is.
Even if the spectrum is bought out by a company that misbehaves in the end, we still have an additional choice to make, whereas previously we had one fewer option. And that's a good thing either way, it gives a chance for a new service to sink or swim.
Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you've got that exactly backwards. Those on the fringes who get ANY picture on analog TV stations, should expect to get a perfect ATSC signal. It has been proven in practice a great many times (a web search should turn up plenty of accounts). And more to the point, broadcast radius is, in fact, ATSC's biggest strength over DVB.
Re:Just a thought... UHF 60-69 for... TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional analog broadcasts had higher power ratings and larger coverage areas than allowed by the new licenses. The reasons being that the broadcasts were all one direction and the broadcasters were attempting to get the signal to as many people as possible. The new licenses are designed with CMRS in mind. CMRS doesn't use the coverage TV broadcast did, the more coverage the more transmitters requiring a piece of the network. Whereas, TV there was just one transmitter. Because CMRS is all about two way communication, it makes more sense to keep the each transmitting network small and have many of them. That way you can let, say, 20 people transmit within a range of frequencies on 10th avenue and one block over allow a different set of 20 people to transmit within the same range (the network serving 40 people across the two city blocks). Increase the power rating, hence the range, now the same geographic area only serves 20 people because there isn't enough spectrum space to serve more within the frequency range. (Okay, very crude example with very little actual engineering. Somebody familiar with current GSM standards could provide a much more accurate example. But, this should convey the concept.)
Because the licenses were designed with CMRS in mind, the power ratings are lower and the size of each "cell" is smaller. In order to have effective TV broadcast you would have to buy many of the license to ensure you didn't cause interference over another licensee's geographic coverage.
Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for a broadcasting company to spend large dollars on new licenses when those broadcasters are all transitioning to digital TV. It makes more sense to just go with the transition and tell consumers that it isn't their fault because the government made them do.
Basically, there is really nothing in the auction rules themselves, but economically speaking it would not be a wise business decision.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um...you just came up with a solution to a problem that isn't even there.
I'm not sure you know what the transition from Analog broadcast to Digital broadcast is all about. And you are not alone.
Nobody is required to switch
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And is becoming less profitable by the day...
This is just stupid. People don't have converter boxes now, but by 2009 damn near all of
Re: (Score:2)
What it will not be fast enough for is streaming HD-Video to your home.
The other problem with this spectrum is that the antenna has to be a lot larger than for a 2.4ghz.
Transcript of the trade (Score:4, Insightful)
(awkward pause)
Sprint/Nextel: nah.
(awkward pause)
Google:
Re:Transcript of the trade (Score:4, Interesting)
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=Google+Sprint [google.com]
The 700MHz Band is great for data (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The 700MHz Band is great for data (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The 700MHz Band is great for data (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who professionally designs cellular networks I can tell you that for data services 20MHz at 2.5GHz is much better than the same 20MHz at 700MHz. The data rate is determined not only by the channel bandwidth but also by the amount of interference that is generated by neighboring base stations. This interference depends on the RF propagation characteristics. At 2.5GHz the RF signals die off much faster with the distance than at 700MHz. As a result your interference levels will be lower at 2.5GHz. The downside is, of course, that cell coverage area of each individual base station will get smaller and you have to deploy them at substantially higher density. Rule of thumb: for voice you are coverage limited and you want your 700MHz (or 850MHz, ATT, Verizon) and big cells. For data you want small cells and high frequency band (2 or 2.5GHz).
Just my two cents from the tranches.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Helloooooo, McFlyyyyyyy! The coupons! (Score:4, Informative)
You're a few years too late in your complaint.
coupons here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so whatabout my grandma? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
O'course, someone with a bit of wherewithal and some co
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)