Comments on: FCC Punts on 700 MHz rulemaking http://gigaom.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:54:52 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Paul http://gigaom.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-515838 Paul Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:54:20 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-515838 <p>No more spectrum is required for MOBILE or two-way wireless communications networks, period. Existing spectrum can support ANY CAPACITY INCREASE WHATSOEVER with lower equipment costs than new spectrum. What existing incumbents have perhaps not realised is that putting up more antenna (elements) either on the same sites or new sites that re-use their existing spectrum provides the same or higher capacity than putting up that same number of new antennas in 700MHz.</p> <p>Furthermore, look what the cellular operators think they want extra spectrum for: Broadcast services. Yes - TV, no less, is the service they are thinking of. I know because I am in the heart of it, but I have to say I fail to see the logic of taking spectrum away from TV in order to give it to TV. Of oucre it makes sense from the operator's viewpoit: Take spectrum away from FREE TV and give it to PAY TV is what they have in mind. But, that is AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST (FCC take note)</p> No more spectrum is required for MOBILE or two-way wireless communications networks, period. Existing spectrum can support ANY CAPACITY INCREASE WHATSOEVER with lower equipment costs than new spectrum. What existing incumbents have perhaps not realised is that putting up more antenna (elements) either on the same sites or new sites that re-use their existing spectrum provides the same or higher capacity than putting up that same number of new antennas in 700MHz.

Furthermore, look what the cellular operators think they want extra spectrum for: Broadcast services. Yes – TV, no less, is the service they are thinking of. I know because I am in the heart of it, but I have to say I fail to see the logic of taking spectrum away from TV in order to give it to TV. Of oucre it makes sense from the operator’s viewpoit: Take spectrum away from FREE TV and give it to PAY TV is what they have in mind. But, that is AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST (FCC take note)

]]> By: Paul Kapustka http://gigaom.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-98633 Paul Kapustka Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:28:06 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-98633 <p>Thanks Harold. (readers should follow the link on Harold's name for his blog and analysis.) I thought Martin's shout out to the 4G coalition was pretty remarkable, given its participants (Google, eBay, etc.) are not his usual running mates. Again, without an order to look at it's not always perfect science trying to decipher both the FCC codespeak from a webcast feed. But it is always fun to hear the commission when they get cranky and whiny, like they're the only people ever to work late once in awhile.</p> Thanks Harold. (readers should follow the link on Harold’s name for his blog and analysis.) I thought Martin’s shout out to the 4G coalition was pretty remarkable, given its participants (Google, eBay, etc.) are not his usual running mates. Again, without an order to look at it’s not always perfect science trying to decipher both the FCC codespeak from a webcast feed. But it is always fun to hear the commission when they get cranky and whiny, like they’re the only people ever to work late once in awhile.

]]> By: Harold Feld http://gigaom.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-98629 Harold Feld Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:57:48 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/fcc-punts-on-700-mhz-rulemaking/#comment-98629 <p>I think you're wrong on your assesment of 4G. They went from a stronger position to a weaker position when Martin had to include the alternate band proposal.</p> <p>You also miss the rather surprise inclusion of the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition open access proposal. Given that both Martin and Adelstein mentioned the coalition by name as improving the process, and given the Commission's antipathy to open access and net neutrality, I'd have thought this inclusion worthy of at least a mention. (Of course, as one of the participants, I am a shade biased.)</p> I think you’re wrong on your assesment of 4G. They went from a stronger position to a weaker position when Martin had to include the alternate band proposal.

You also miss the rather surprise inclusion of the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition open access proposal. Given that both Martin and Adelstein mentioned the coalition by name as improving the process, and given the Commission’s antipathy to open access and net neutrality, I’d have thought this inclusion worthy of at least a mention. (Of course, as one of the participants, I am a shade biased.)

]]>