Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Network United States Wireless Networking

FCC To Review the Relative Value of Low, High, and Super-high Spectrum Licenses 58

MrSeb writes "The FCC is reviewing the rules it has for spectrum license ownership, particularly on how much spectrum any one company can hold. The FCC is considering this rework because the rules do not currently account for the properties of different frequencies of spectrum. There are three main classes of spectrum for cellular wireless networks: low band, high band, and super high band — but at the moment, they are all valued equally. Given that low band spectrum is valued favorably against high band and super high band spectrum in the market, and that AT&T and Verizon have by far the most low band spectrum, it makes sense for the FCC to adjust its rules in order to more accurately determine how much spectrum any one company needs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Review the Relative Value of Low, High, and Super-high Spectrum Licenses

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Why do I feel more and more like I'm a Chinese citizen and not an American citizen? Although, apparently the model works... judging by where most of the shit I buy these days is made.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      american system: think you are free
      chinese system: accept that the government is the head of the household
      your system: living in america knowing that the government is the head of the household
      ergo you feel like america is china
      ergo you feel like a chinese citizen

      sidenote: yes the chinese system works too.
      second sidenote: people like to be right when they feel like they are free. the international socio-econo-political system that we created together is more complicated than that.

    • by c0lo ( 1497653 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @11:32AM (#41205885)

      Why do I feel more and more like I'm a Chinese citizen and not an American citizen?

      Hmmmm... yes... let's deregulate the use of spectrum and let the companies actually "compete" for it... freely, no rules, interference and jamming and, why not, hitmen and private armies should be allowed.

      Does somehow the concept of commons [] rings to you too close to communism?

  • by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Sunday September 02, 2012 @11:21AM (#41205825)

    Yeah theres a lot of bandwidth available in gamma rays.

    Just a few side effects though (like turning into superheroes or dying of cancer)

    • by rhavan ( 1755044 )
      You just have to be careful as to what show you're watching at the time. I'm sure any superhero who gained their powers during a taping of Jersey Shore would rather have been given death.
  • Privately allocating the radio spectrum is only marginally more stupid than privately allocating land. It's a shared resource and should really be allocated according to need rather than on the basis of bidding wars / trade / etc. In particular, it is absurd that individual private companies obtain exclusive access to invaluable ranges where either multiplexing could occur.

    • Yes, it is the wrong approach.. and while rationing may or may not be justifiable at this time, the FCC should focus on more creative use of the spectrum. The only real limit is our knowledge. But, profit is king.

    • Meh, the real answer is somewhere between the extremes. Sometimes it makes sense for a single entity to have exclusive use of some band, and sometimes it makes no sense at all. You do not really want multiplexing for satellite base stations or RADAR; we really do want it for Internet service.
      • Indeed, the argument must always be based on technical need - and, where there are competing providers, on the basis of equitable access.

        In practice and to take a physical counterpart, Ofcom has been slowly but surely requiring BT (the ex-state and still vaguely regulated UK telecoms provider) to allow competing companies to make use of its ducts and poles. Where natural monopolies are otherwise inevitable, you require physical or technical sharing of resources. That certainly doesn't mean that other provid

    • by tsotha ( 720379 )

      Privately allocating the radio spectrum is only marginally more stupid than privately allocating land

      Assumes facts not in evidence. I think "privately allocating land", which most people call private property, is the most efficient and harmonious way to do it. Spectrum is probably the same.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Considering how much of the spectrum Verizon owns and the pretty decent size more of the spectrum that it has purchased from various other companies, I believe Verizon has by far the largest portion of the newly (relatively speaking) auctioned off wireless spectrum. But it hasn't done a hell of a lot with it, in fact most of the spectrum they've bought so far I'm pretty sure is still completely unused by them. WHY?

    If they have all these hundreds of millions or billions of dollars laying around to buy up m

    • by hazydave ( 96747 )

      If you're getting worse connections on a 4G phone than your 3G phone, in the same places, etc... it's not 4G, it's your phone. After all, if the 4G connection can't be kept, you'll drop back to the same 3G connection you had previously. In fact, there are Android apps that force 4G off, entirely.

      Sure sounds like you just got a crappy Galaxy Nexus. I have a GN too, and it replaced an O.G. Droid. I'm certain the O.G. Droid did a slightly better job of pulling in the 3G signals... I get slightly less performan

  • Determining how much spectrum anyone needs should be nearly as easy as figuring out how many Kilobytes of RAM anyone could possibly ever need in a personal computer. I'm confident the government should be trusted to make these kinds of decisions instead of doing something so unseemly and commercial as auctioning limited term-licenses.

UNIX is many things to many people, but it's never been everything to anybody.