The 700MHz Question 148
mstrchf07 writes "The FCC will soon be auctioning off the rights to use the 700MHz spectrum for wireless communications, with the winner being able to choose the direction of wireless services development in the US. With stakes this high, is the playing field fair, and are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?"
We need google to buy it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is open and free now? Wow! Where can I get a copy of their search engine source?!
I have my doubts that Google can remain "not evil" (on the overall karmic scale) for much longer. I would think a non-profit, transparent entity would be far more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think that Google is a very evil company. But I wouldn't put them on any pedestal as a great benefactor. As too who gets the spectrum. Well I would like to see Sprint get it since they are cu
Re:We need google to buy it (Score:5, Funny)
Well I would like to see Sprint get it since they are currently the least evil of the cell companies in the US.
Sounds a bit like saying, "I want to sell my soul to Mephistopheles because he's the least evil demon in hell!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reflecting that onto Google itself is nothing less then clutching at straws, and hate mongering IMO."
Wow you are truly a member of the faithful.
So then you don't object to anyone buying an SUV? You logic is they can afford it so it is alright should apply to all equally?
I am not some Marxist, Luddite, or Green party member. I don't have a problem with them having a
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference here, is that its on a larger scale, a behemoth company, and their founders getting a behemoth SUV."
So you have to be a CEO to rate an SUV? How big of a company does it have to be for it to be okay in your book to have a behemoth SUV.
BTW Google OWNS the 767. It is for the use of the founders and maybe other execs.
So in this case it is the founders acting as the head of the company buying the ego toy under the compan
Re: (Score:2)
BTW Google OWNS the 767. It is for the use of the founders and maybe other execs.
According to the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com], your assertion is incorrect:
Mr. Page says he and Mr. Brin bought the plane themselves and will use it for personal travel. He says there's no plan for Google to reimburse the duo for its costs. A Google spokesman says the plane has no formal connection with the company.
A retraction on your part would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep I was wrong.
However the entire point of my post is still valid.
Expecting Google to look out for anyones best interests but their own is foolish.
However anyone that thinks that it is OK to have a 767 for personal travel must also feel that it is OK for anyone that can afford an SUV should to buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need google to buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the best paragraph from the article:
If this were to happen, I think it would be a good example of the free market working as intended. US cellphone companies are destroying much of the value of the spectrum they control in order to serve their own narrow interests (e.g. charging hundreds of dollars per megabyte for SMS messages). Since google's business model provides more value to more people, google has more cash on hand to win the bandwidth auction. With any luck this could all work out just right.Re: (Score:2)
Not Google, but a consortium (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think someone has a sig relevant to this news... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce.
If you don't get why that is amusing and appropriate - this about the nature of the Soviet Russia jokes, and what that says about the US.
Re:I think someone has a sig relevant to this news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I think someone has a sig relevant to this news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
UGH!
Re:I think someone has a sig relevant to this news (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is an interesting use of the joke. First, Yakov Smirnoff's version of the joke was usually to have the reverse of America, but have the American version make sense, but the Russian version paint a bad picture of Russia. The GGP post reverses this, having the Russian thing make sense and the American be corrupt. Since the joke is about reversal in the first place, reversing the reversal is in itself a bit funny.
Also, the jokes were originally meant to be a bit dark and ironic, and then used as a Slashdot cliche they were usually ironically ironic, resulting in a sort of nonsensical whimsey. Now, another layer of irony is added, almost returning the joke to its original sense, but I would say not quite to its original sense. So much irony has basically made it a non-joke, and simply a piercing critique of current US policy. It's pointing out that as ridiculously backwards as Soviet Russia was, it still may have been less backwards than we are now.
Now, did I really have to explain myself like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like: What's Capitalism? The exploitation of man by his fellow man. And Communism? Exactly the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "Commerce".
If you're talking "The Invisible Hand" of economic pressure originating with the desires and choices of masses of individuals, rather than bribery of officials by corporations or wealthy individuals, a free-marketer would still consider the Russian version to be corrupt and the American version not. B-)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking "The Invisible Hand" of economic pressure originating with the desires and choices of masses of individuals
I don't think that's what we're talking about. What was written was, "In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce." According to the format of the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes, you'd reverse that and say that, in America, commerce controls the government. It implies that the government is being controlled by wealthy entities exerting economic pressure over officials (i.e. b
Re: (Score:2)
There are some people who think that "commerce controlling the government" might be a GOOD thing. (Presuming, of course, that it ISN'T just outright bribery by an elite, which is what the original poster was joking about.)
Please re-read the post.
Re: (Score:2)
I've re-read it, still not getting it. The "invisible hand" of economic pressure can control commerce and have it be a free market and a good thing, but what does it look like when the "invisible hand" of economic pressure controls the federal government?
Individuals in the government should not be making decisions based on their own personal economic gain. When they do, I'd tend to call that some kind of "bribery" or "corruption", even if it's not explicitly structured with one guy handing money to anoth
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibition leading to increased alcohol consumption, formation of gangs, gang wars, shooting wars between gangs and law enforcement, poisonous booze, etc. Similarly with the "drug war".
Gun restrictions leading to increased crime - including increased shoo
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that's a big long explanation of why you're conservative, which is fine. But my question is how are you going to have "commerce" run the government as a good thing? Even if you have conservatives running the government, using careful planning and looking towards secondary and tertiary consequences, they still shouldn't be choosing laws based on personal economic gain, should they? Shouldn't they be making laws for the good of the country, and not based on what makes them money?
Or else, what do you m
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say *I* thought it was a good idea. I said "a free-marketer would still consider the Russian version to be corrupt and the American version not."
Ask one of them. B-)
(Personally I think that free markets are great and we ought to try them some time, but that when the values go negative they tend to break down and you need something additional. Like some minimal government. Or and armed population with
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there are any of the sort of "free-marketers" in existence who aren't either children, madmen, or disingenuous about their views. So who would I ask?
I'm saying that I don't even understand what kind of concept you're getting at. By what method does commerce control the government except through bribery and corruption? I don't see even a possible theoretical mechanism for it.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't they always?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
There actually were politicians who remembered that one of the big sources of the depression of the 30s was that people didn't have money to actually buy crap, so what was produced could not be sold, products piling up and businesses going under because of it. So they tried to keep at least enough in our pockets so we could go 'n spend.
Unfortunately, few politicians still remember those days. Most that are on the helm today only remember the 60s, where the aforementioned politicians (those who did remember) were in control, and all our current politicians learned that people always had enough money to spend, so shifting more money towards those that already have can't hurt too much, we'll keep buying.
I just wonder: What should we buy crap with when we barely earn enough to get by? Let's imagine I make DVD players. Now, you want one, I want one, a lot of people want one. When each of us has 2000 bucks to spend, we'll both buy one. When I got 4000 and you got zip, I'll buy one. You can't afford it, so you won't. I only need one player, though (what would I do with two?). So instead of two DVD players sold, it's only one.
Extrapolate for the economy on a larger scale.
Deja Vue all over again! (Score:2, Informative)
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the
Dat Wuz Rhetorical Qvestion, Yah (Score:2, Insightful)
Total bandwidth? (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to be like this article is a bunch of meaningless speculation about Google's plans for being a ubiquitous WISP.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
With the 4 openness principles, I don't think any provider would even attempt to shape the traffic based on content. There wouldn't be enough regularity to make it pro
Re:Total bandwidth? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're trying to compare two separate units. 15MB/sec is not an amount of bandwidth, it is a bitrate. Bitrates much, much higher than the bandwidth can easily be achieved if you have a high enough signal-to-noise ratio. For example, a "56k" modem can achieve 53000bps in 3000hz of bandwidth. Similarly, low bitrates can still be achieved even with signal-to-noise ratios much less than one (GPS does 50bps with signals less than one thousandth the strength of the noise floor).
To determine error-free bitrate, you need to know how much bandwidth you have, how much signal you have, how much noise you have, and also what the spectral efficiency of the modulation technique you are using is. The formula is called Shannon's Theorem.
In other words, once the FCC announces what the maximum allowable power is for this band, then you can start speculating on how much data you can pump through it.
Re: (Score:2)
- Multiply by the number of cells.
- Multiply that by the number of directaional-antenna sectors in each cell.
- And multiply yet again by the number of antennas in the steerable-null array in each sector.
Which is presuming you're even using a single-base-multiple-remote model, rather than an adaptive mesh network where the users also forward packets to other users who can't (or shouldn't) hit the landline bridge directly.
Remember: We're talking cellular technology here. Unlike
Re: (Score:2)
While it is important to consider how to prevent one customer's traffic from affecting another, I was talking about the amount of bandwidth a single customer could potentially receive. Also, I believe the cellular companies are transmitting on non-overlapping channels with each sector antenna (at UH
Re: (Score:2)
Look into "MIMO". Multiply the bandwidth by the base-2 log of the signal to noise ratio by the number of coordinated antennas on the end with fewer coordinated antennas.
Also, I believe the cellular companies are transmitting on non-overlapping channels with each sector antenna (at UHF and microwave frequencies, they are not directional enough to prevent overloading the other antennas/radios a few feet away), and they se
Re: (Score:2)
Arrgh. Should have previewed. The HTML formatting ate the "less than" sign.
Make that "M (less-than-or-equal-to N)"
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, elements a few wavelengths apart are as directional as a telephoto lens which is one or two micrometers across [wikipedia.org] (a few wavelengths of visible light). In any case, no matter how many antenna elements you put in phase to shine your signal only where you want (and whether you do it via smart antennas or an old skool yagi or dish does
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so I overstated it. (A lot. B-) )
Nevertheless, with even a rather small angular separation between remote stations, it's entirely adequate for N antennas to synthesize N separate, simultaneous, coverage patterns, each with N-1 solid nulls on the N-1 stations that aren't intended to be sent to or received from by the pattern in question, givi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a rhetorical question, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Yes. In that order.
They playing field is rarely fair when business is concerned. If corporate interest is involved, there is always a corporation able to affect the environment much more than any governmental regulation; and they will always affect the environment in their own favor, whether it is in the best interest of citizens or technology or progress or any other damned thing that doesn't have anything at all to do with "maximizing profits."
This is all stupid talk. Some corporation will end up in control of a public resource. The public will get fucked. That's how it works. That's how it always works.
Re:This is a rhetorical question, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all stupid talk. Some corporation will end up in control of a public resource. The public will get fucked. That's how it works. That's how it always works.
I think you've hit on an interesting issue in all of this, and I wonder why you didn't put more emphasis on it. The wireless spectrum is a *public* resource. Somehow this whole debate about the 700Mhz spectrum always gets framed in such a way as to imply that some huge company necessarily must own it. However, it's technically public and only gets licensed to some company for commercial use.
It really must not be forgotten. AT&T has no legal right to own the 700Mhz spectrum. It would be much more true to say that the people of the United States own that spectrum and always will. The question in front of us (and in front of *our* lawmakers (those lawmakers work for us!)) is how we wish to use that spectrum. Even if we license it to some particular business or group for the development of commerce or infrastructure, we have every right to put limits on how it can be developed and used.
For some reason, we've been tricked into not thinking of things that way. Radio waves travel through the air over everyone's property and through our bodies all the time. It's inherently public, like light or air. A responsible government cannot auction off those sorts of resources without any restriction on how they can be controlled or used. Moreover, what we're talking about here is the development of a national telecommunications infrastructure. We wouldn't let a single company own all plumbing so that all pipes, faucets, sinks, and toilets had to be purchased from that company. We wouldn't allow a single company to own all of our roads and highways such that they could deny passage to any driver or any car brand. We shouldn't allow a single company to control our communications over the entire country.
We are talking about making use of public resources in order to create national infrastructure. I have no objection to involving private companies in the development of that infrastructure, but the end result needs to be regulated in favor of the public good.
And no, I'm not a communist or socialist. I don't believe the federal government should be involved in very much. If there's one thing the federal government should do, it's maintain a standing army. If there are two things it should do, it's maintain an army and regulate the maintenance of national infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, as a Canadian, I find the idea that your country alone must "own" the spectrum at least as bad or more so than a large company owning it.
I know you probably didn't mean what you said there, but try to remember that there are a lot more of us outside your borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was a bad word, I said that I'm not one. And what I mean when I say, "I'm not a socialist" is that I don't think it's usually effective, efficient, or good to have a federal government running lots of things.
I'm generally believe in capitalism as an economic theory-- that supply and demand of private interests can regulate an economy better than a central government can. The goal of an economic system is efficiency at maintaining the public good. Insofar as capitalism is efficient, it's
Re: (Score:2)
People are always quick to demonize the corporation without giving any credit to the benefits allowed by such legal organizations of resources and people. While it is true that corporations, like people, sometimes behave badly it is also true to say that the modern lifestyle, which is based upon a foundation of incredible complexity, would not be possible without the
Re: (Score:2)
From The Wealth of Nations:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages"
"and by directing that indu
More Specifically (Score:4, Interesting)
Telcos win, consumers lose. Same story different day.
The money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I should proofread before clicking submit. A system like Digg where you have 60 seconds to edit a post would be nice though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ignore the above, I haven't had my Mt Dew yet today.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, we (through our elected representatives) have decided that we want to license this spectrum out to private entities, and reap the revenue from this. We could have left it unlicensed (a la 2.4/5.8Ghz), but we (through our elected representatives) decided not to.
We could also have placed greater restrictions on the users of the spectrum, but decided not to, as that would lead to lowe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a single page link (Score:2)
With the current judicial and executive branch.... (Score:5, Funny)
Of *course*!
And it's not even a matter of business needs, it's business greeds.
What is good for GM is good for America (Score:5, Insightful)
Just yesterday Newt Gingrich came on the George Stephenopolos(sp?) show and claimed that 70% of Americans support reduction in corporate taxes, 60% support abolition of capital gains tax etc etc. That would be alright if he is genuinely a fiscal conservative sincerely trying to reduce the size of the government. But he opened with "New Orleans is still a mess, ..." What? It is somehow the Govt's job to allow people sandwiched between Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi and the lake to build homes below sea level and keep pumping out water and spend couple of billion dollars in the levy system?
If Republicans would not take on people's unrealistic expectations from Govt what right they have to complain about Tax and Spend Democrats?
Re: (Score:2)
It is somehow the Govt's job to allow people sandwiched between Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi and the lake to build homes below sea level and keep pumping out water and spend couple of billion dollars in the levy system?
So, you're saying it's not in the interest of our government to rebuild the port city on the largest river in our country? It's not in the government's interest to provide disaster relief? It's not in government's interest to invest in infrastructure?
This to me is indicative of the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If it's so damned profitable, then businesses should be willing to rebuild there. And the local government there should collect the taxes it needs in order to build some proper levees, and if these taxes are too high for the businesses to exist, then it's not damned profitable enough. It's one of those "return on investment" deals. If the dollars aren't there, then it isn't worth i
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, there's big difference between disaster relief and disaster recovery. Relief is bringing in food, water, medicine and so on. Recovery goes well beyond that, to rebuilding of homes and businesses. It is thoroughly consistent to say that the federal government should help with the first, but not with the second.
Th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can argue whether the city should've been built there all day if you want, but at the end of the day, the city's there, it's been there for hundreds of years. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the cit
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that there shouldn't be a city there. I was suggesting that if it makes economic sense to have a city there, then you don't need the federal government to step in. The property owners will either fix up their property themselves, or sell to somebody else who will. You mention hundreds of billion dollars worth of buildings, homes, etc.... If they are worth that much, then surely their owners will be willing to clean them up and renovate them wit
Re: (Score:2)
Also - a port facility needs SOME housing for workers, but not a whole city.
In any case, as you say - if the city were really worth billions of dollars they could just raise taxes and build their
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking abou
Re: (Score:2)
If New Orleans can't afford to fix things on their own then in fact it isn't worth all that much in the first place.
And mortgages are the way you extract real dollars (cash) out of property valuations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your house is 95% leveraged already then sure, they won't give you cash unless it is expected to increase the value of your home, or at least be financially neutral to you.
If New Orleans is in fact 95% leveraged already then let the banks worry about it - they're the only ones with a financial stake in the place. If they have lots of equity then getting loans won't be a problem.
My basic point is that I'm skeptical that New Orleans is worth all thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sky is blue, winter is cold (Score:2)
Of course they are. Business needs are what bring profit to individuals so they can afford to live apart from the herd. Business needs drive everything.
If as a worker, I want to succeed, I pick the company that succeeds according to business needs and grow with it. When buying stocks, I pick the company with closest attention to business needs.
Technological and consumer interests have nothing to do with it except as means to the end of busin
Bass-Ackwards (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be: "are business interests trumping consumer and technological needs?"
Re: (Score:2)
Wants and desires have been driving change for a very long time. Business is the process that feeds those desires. Welcome to free markets!
Business vs. Consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
YES. Where have you been?
At least in the US, it has become so painfully obvious that our government's number one priority is Big Business. Watch the bills that are drawn and enacted in this country and you will quickly see that almost all of them are catering to business interests and, most likely, trampling on individuals' rights.
It belongs to the people (Score:3)
Where's the 'Duh' Meta-tag when you need it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did Congress and/or the FCC commissioners flunk Econ 101? If they auction the spectrum off, the eventual winners will need a business plan that produces some return on this investment. The greater the auction price, the more they have to earn. The more they have to earn, the more they are going to have to squeeze out of the eventual consumers.
Sure, its not absolute. They still have to provide service that consumers will 'want' (even if they e
Re: (Score:2)
So basically they're going to end up heavily limiting the benefits of the spectrum in return for an ultimately insignificant amount of money. It's almost certainly not in the best interests of the citizens.
There, fixed that for you (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed that for ya.
700 MHz, How free? (Score:2, Funny)
Use money on infrastructure not licenses (Score:2)
*looks* (Score:2)
TFA: if the first point is WRONG, can I trust it (Score:2)
Re:2 words... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think business needs are trumping individual interests - they actually parallel in a captialistic society - without the businesses, the individuals would not get what they need/want.
No, it's the businesses wants (excesses of money, power, etc) that are trumping individual interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad for me, huh?
Too bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> " are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?"
Of course business comes first - its the USofA we're talking about. Diebold voting machines. The home of BushCheneyHaliburton. The land of the free lunch if you're a C*O.
What are you, some sort of pinko commie terr'rist?
-- This post brought to you by Western Digital, because Seagate ate my RAID.
good point (Score:3, Interesting)
I also think they should drastically reduce the hoop jumping and expense for lower power broadcasting, open that up as well, commercial or not for profit, it doesn't matter, we have good tech now that would allow a lot more st
Re: (Score:2)