Ron Schenone

Justice Department Asks FCC To Expand Wireless Spectrum

Posted by on Jan 5, 2010 | 5 Comments

In a country that prides itself as being technologically advanced, it is still an unbelievable fact how many people in our country do not have a broadband connection. By freeing up more wireless spectrum, the hope is that other companies, besides the teleco giants, will be able to provide broadband service for a lower price. In a recent blog post it states that:

The Department of Justice filing states “Given the potential of wireless services to reach underserved areas and to provide an alternative to wireline broadband providers in other areas, the [FCC]‘s primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up spectrum.”

The response continues, stating that among other obstacles impeding Clearwire, T-Mobile, Sprint, and others from deploying effective wireless broadband systems “the scarcity of spectrum is a fundamental obstacle that the [FCC] should address. Stated simply, without access to sufficient spectrum a firm cannot provide state-of-the-art wireless broadband services.”

The FCC request for input, and the DOJ response are indications of the urgency the United States government is placing on making broadband Internet access available universally. The problem is that much of the nation is rural and does not have the wired infrastructure necessary to deliver broadband access.

Increasing the availability of wireless broadband resolves two issues simultaneously. First, it would make broadband access available on a cost-effective basis in areas not currently served by wireline broadband service. Second, it levels the playing field between wireless and wireline broadband access and offers an opportunity for new players to compete against traditional communications giants.

I personally believe that this is a great idea and should be implemented as soon as possible. Without a broadband connection the Internet is basically useless for those left with dial up only. I couldn’t imagine life without broadband. What about you?

Comments as always are welcome.

Source

  • Paul Sherman

    The problem with giving wireless spectrum to a particular use is that it has to be taken away from another use. To see just how much trouble this can be, look at the FCC’s allocation chart: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF

    All available frequencies are already in use; in most cases, they’re in use by multiple groups. Allocating spectrum for commercial use is incredibly complicated (and expensive).

    For example; it took 3 years just to set aside 12 MHz for dedicated wireless patient monitoring, a non-commercial life critical use that required a tiny sliver of bandwidth.

  • Bill MacGregor

    Like Paul stated
    The Bandwidth is USED.
    This reminds me of the Cable Companies Lying to the FCC , stating that All digital was necessary and would Save everyone Money
    Cable has been using digital and analog at the same time for many years.
    All they did was move the analog up the band. If you watch TV through a cable box, when you change channels you see info at the bottom of the screen, that info is on analog, bypass the box and you get no info
    Most Cable companies hide the new Costs but would you believe that COX in California Now Charges $7.95 for digital line service and $5.99 for the digital box + + +
    The Costs are Higher and so will WiFi access if they can find a frequency to us.
    It would be much cheaper to have the cable companies add repeaters and cable to areas not covered, Repeaters , Yep cable uses satellites too.
    BILL

  • Glenn

    I am a Ham radio operator, and I can tell you a little about frequency use, especially the parts of the spectrum that they might use for broadband access.

    For such access, the VHF, UHF, and SHF bands are primarily used, along with microwave bands. These are high frequency, short wavelength bands.

    These bands have a very limited range, for the most part. Propagation, except in some exceptional circumstances, is limited to line of sight. That is the reason that the plethora of cell towers are necessary.

    What this means is that the same frequencies can be used at various places, as long as no others exist within range. For instance, the frequency of 500 MHz can be used in two places, as long as there is a sufficient distance between them that they cannot “see” each other.

    There are also methods of transmission available that will allow many stations to share the same frequency bands and not interfere with the others. One of these is Spread Spectrum.

    Spread Spectrum is a transmission protocol whereby the transmitters and receivers of the communicating devices change frequencies rapidly, and in a predetermined sequence.

    The spectrum is in place and there is only so much of it. As I feel I have demonstrated, there are technologies which can be used to make more efficient use of it.

    I think every effort should be made to make more efficient use of the spectrum as possible before usurping more and more of it. The conversion to digital TV has been a first step in this directions. We have more technologies yet to explore.

    BTW, I have a Digital Spread Spectrum wireless phone that uses this technology (a Sanyo). It has excellent fidelity and an excellent range beyond the range of a normal wireless phone.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone

    Thanks Glenn. Interesting explaination,
    Regards, Ron

  • Paul Sherman

    Thanks Glenn for providing more background for the readers.

    73

    Paul Sherman KD0CIW