FCC proposes giving 500MHz spectrum to cell carriers
updated 03:55 pm EST, Wed February 24, 2010
Genachowski would pay broadcasters for airwaves
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski today proposed (PDF) a more detailed plan to address the feared spectrum shortage for cellular carriers. The approach would take as much as 500MHz of wireless space currently used by broadcasters and repurpose it for data networks. Those operators that agreed to drop spectrum would get a share of the proceeds as a financial incentive.
It would also consider alternatives that Genachowski has mentioned in the past, such as "second carrier" plans that would let two or more carriers share the same spectrum.
Audio and video broadcasters have vocally objected to these plans in the past, but the FCC head refuted some of these claims as he argued that many don't make effective use of the frequencies they have. Of the 300MHz specifically dedicated to services like TV, only about 150MHz is used even in particularly dense population centers. In most larger cities, spectrum use is more likely to sit at 100MHz, and many smaller areas use just 36MHz.
Spectrum has been a critical issue in the US, particularly since the launch of the iPhone 3G in 2008 and the seeming collapse of AT&T's network in larger cities like New York City and San Francisco. While the problem in these areas was often a virtue of AT&T's slow progress in using the spectrum it had at the time, many suspect that further 3G use and especially 4G will lead to networks being oversaturated as customers start replacing landline access with wireless and use it for tasks like high-quality video streaming or multiplayer games.
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2006
Delaying the inevitable
I'm certainly no great fan of all the free and often lightly used spectrum that TV stations have been sitting on for decades, but this frequency grab will simply delay us from doing what we'll eventually have to do anyway.
There's simply not enough spectrum in major cities to handle the potential demand if people began to regard it as their 'right' to stream a TV show to their smart phone on the go. We can't go lower in frequency. The antennas would be too large for mobile devices and there's not much spectrum there anyway. We can't go much higher if we want gadgets to work well indoors. We're going to have to live with what we have.
To do that have to be realistic about pricing. Like any other commodity, on-air digital data can't be free. The charges have to be high enough to match supply and demand and the supply and demand math for major cities is vastly different from that in rural areas, as well as varying based on the time of day. Digital rates for days and early evenings in Manhattan have to be higher than in small towns in the wee hours of the night. That'll force more intelligent use of bandwidth.
Cellular also needs to become more cellular. Base station antenna heights and power need to come down, so spectrum can be reused more often. Within the next few years, most cellular systems should be operating below the level of two story buildings, rather than perched 50-100 feet in the air, perhaps by installing them on utility poles up and down streets. And feeding each of these microcells hunger for data would cover much of the cost of running fiber to the curb in major cities, allowing us to more easily move to fiber to the home for Internet broadband. Microcells also need to move indoors, where cell coverage is already poor.
We could also make more creative use of the broadcast spectrum without taking it away from TV stations. Data in popular demand, such as the text of major newspapers and popular sports events could be sent once in a TV station's digital stream. Smartphones could be smart enough to capture it then, storing it for use later. The spectrum efficiency of broadcasting beats the socks of streaming a major league baseball game to thousands of people individually.
The FCC isn't helping matters by becoming addicted to the money it rakes in when it holds spectrum auctions. Nor are cell companies doing themselves or anyone else a favor when they push more and more use, thinking it means more and more income.