Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Handhelds Networking The Almighty Buck Wireless Networking

Spectrum Fragmentation Means Pricier Mobile Networking 80

alphadogg writes "The plethora of spectrum bands used for LTE will result in more expensive devices, and also make the ability to roam globally using the technology less likely, according to industry organization GSM Association's research arm. Wireless Intelligence predicts there will be 38 different spectrum frequency combinations used in LTE deployments by 2015, thanks to ongoing spectrum auctions, license renewals and reallocation initiatives across a wide range of frequency bands. The number of combinations means economies of scale won't be as good and prices won't come down as much as they could if fewer spectrum bands were used as volumes increase, Joss Gillet, a senior analyst for Wireless Intelligence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spectrum Fragmentation Means Pricier Mobile Networking

Comments Filter:
  • Software radios (Score:5, Informative)

    by koan ( 80826 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @06:44PM (#38411806)
  • Re:Lol (Score:4, Informative)

    by sgt scrub ( 869860 ) <[saintium] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:00PM (#38411924)

    Um yeah, yeah. We have it good here in the U.S. Gigabit wireless unlimited time, unlimited bandwidth. We also have some nice property opportunities. In fact, I have a nice water front property with its own private bridge available for a small down payment of, lets say, $2,000 U.S.D. Please send the check to.... You have typed more than 40 characters. Your usage limit has been exceeded. Your 14.4k modem connection has been terminated. -- AT&T

  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday December 17, 2011 @07:54PM (#38412212)

    Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expense, will have those unintended consequences you claim you don't want.

    I suspect you've never run a business, or at least not handled the accounting side of one. Placing an arbitrary cap on the length of time a company can recover their expenses is exactly what you want.

    The ROI from owning (licensing) spectrum is a rate: e.g. dollars per year.
    The cost of the spectrum is an amount: e.g. dollars.

    The only way to reconcile these two is to either:

    Limit the amount of time they can use the spectrum. Then:
    ROI = (dollars / year) * (years) = dollars
    Cost = dollars

    or

    Make the licensing cost a recurring annual fee, not a one time payment. Then:
    ROI = dollars / year
    Cost = dollars / year

    Only when the units for cost and return are consistent can you make an analytical fiscal decision. Even purchases with a one-time fee, like a car, are turned into rates in accounting. You amortize the car's cost over the number of years you expect the car to remain in service. So if the company buys a car with a loan whose total payments work out to $35k, and you expect to use the car for 7 years, then the cost of the car is $35k / 7 years = $5k per year.

    Any cap you place won't be arbitrary. It will taken into account in the bidding process. If a company thinks they can make $1 million/yr from the spectrum, and you place an arbitrary cap of 5 years, then they will not bid more than (assuming 10% profit margin) $4.5 million minus interest. If your cap is 10 years, then they will not bid more than $9 million minus interest.

    As a fiscal conservative who has run a business and done the accounting for it, our government's insistence on auctioning spectrum in perpetuity for a one-time fee has always baffled me. It's like saying if you pay me $1000 one time, I will clean your bathroom once a week forever. It makes no business sense because it's impossible to tell if I'm getting a good deal (maybe you'll die next week) or a bad deal (maybe you'll live to be 120).

  • Re:Software radios (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2011 @02:40AM (#38414318)

    I'M AN ENGINEER DESIGNING CELLULAR HARDWARE.

    Please let me re-iterate what the article says: "The plethora of spectrum bands used for LTE (Long-Term Evolution) will result in [***]more expensive devices[***], and also make the ability to roam globally using the technology less likely."

    The issue is not the modulation / coding, which is already performed via software and unconverted (ie software defined radio). The issue is in the RF front-end, which is highly specific to its frequency of operation. This includes FILTERS that are tuned to precise frequencies of operation, POWER AMPLIFIERS that are tuned to a specific frequency (some have slight control over their frequency via IO pins, with trade-offs), and LOW-NOISE AMPLIFIERS to name a few. Anytime you try to make this hardware work over a wider band or become reconfigurable, there are serious trade-offs in efficiency, cost, and overall performance. Cell phone antennas are not the issue.

    Software defined radios generally don't work in the GHz range. They produce signals in the MHz range and up-converted into the GHz range, but thank you Slashdot for trying to teach me how to design a phone! This software-defined fully-reconfigurable world phone is a brilliant idea! I'll let my boss know our next design will be the size of a spectrum analyzer, weigh 10 kg and cost $10,000. And you won't be able to talk and surf because the software defined radio won't have the bandwidth for both the LTE signals and the WiFi signals. Again, THANK YOU SLASHDOT FOR TEACHING ME HOW TO DESIGN A PHONE!

    To add to the cost, forcing cell phone designers to re-design pieces of the phone for different regions will add to the price even more. There's a push to lower the cost by creating one design that can operate in any region (re-designs / modifications are expensive).

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...