APLawrence.com -  Resources for Unix and Linux Systems, Bloggers and the self-employed

The 700 MHz Spectrum

© November 2007 Anthony Lawrence


On January 16th, 2008, TV channels 52 to 68 go up for auction. Well, the broadcast spectrum they use is really what's being sold. This is all part of the deal Congress made with the TV broadcasters; they promised to move to digital (High Def), they got some freebies, but they had to give up these channels.

So big deal, right? Well, yeah, it is. This is fairly low frequency bandwidth, which is the bandwidth everybody wants because it travels farther and penetrates buildings.. think big drums as opposed to whistles: low frequencies go the distance. So "everybody" wants those channels (or more accurately the frequencies those channels so inefficiently consume).

"Everybody" includes Google, AT&T, Sprint and plenty of people you never heard of. It also includes your local fire, police and ambulance services: remember 9/11 when there was so much problem with different departments being unable to communicate with each other? The idea is to put all public safety into these slots to make that easier.

Originally the turkey legs were going to go to public safety and the rest of the bird would get tossed to the dogs to fight over. That is, 24MHz was to go for public safety, 60MHz or so for wireless use, and the rest of the available 108MHz had already gone somewhere.. I don't know where, but I don't have it.

Well, the FCC instead went with a plan where ALL of it (all 107 or 108 MHz - I keep seeing different figures) could be available to public safety if needed. That is, all the big boys get to bid on the 60 odd MHz that they want to have in their pockets, but they have to "build it out" so that it could be handed over to public safety use in the event of an emergency.

Hmmm.. remember those "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System" things on TV? Yeah, something like that: you'll be cruising around the country, using your 4G wireless, and they'll take it away for that.

Ok, but what about that 4G wireless? We get that, right? Yes, sort of, maybe.. but what you get, and how much fun it's going to be, depends a bit on who wins the auction in your area and how nice they want to play with everyone else. The rules set up by the FCC say that the network must allow "open devices and open applications", but they did not include what companies like Google wanted to see: open services and open networks. The difference may not seem all that much, but in reality it is. If, for example, AT&T sees cell phones as more profitable than wireless Internet, it might adjust things differently than Google would. It all gets very confusing, with everybody accusing everone else of intended rape and wholesale bribery. Hey, you mean we can't trust that other bazillion dollar corporation but we can trust you? You know what's good for us but they are just after our wallets? Gosh, I thought all of you were Eagle Scouts..

Well, no matter what happens, things will improve for you and me. Someday we may actually have wireless internet just about anywhere we want to be, and it might even be marginally cheaper in addition to faster and more reliable. How much we get and what happens longer term might depend on who wins what at the auction, but life will get better, and it is good to know that public safety will get a boost too.

Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM9iDOF8D7M

Got something to add? Send me email.

(OLDER)    <- More Stuff -> (NEWER)    (NEWEST)   

Printer Friendly Version

-> The 700 Mhz Spectrum


Inexpensive and informative Apple related e-books:

Take Control of High Sierra

Photos: A Take Control Crash Course

Take Control of IOS 11

Take Control of the Mac Command Line with Terminal, Second Edition

Are Your Bits Flipped?

More Articles by © Anthony Lawrence

Thu Nov 1 11:19:33 2007: 3213   TonyLawrence

I was thinking about the public safety switchover. Imagine the conspiracy theories that can be built off that: at the flip of a switch "they" (you know, "them") can make us deaf and dumb, unable to use our cell phones, our computers.. ooohhh...

Thu Nov 1 13:42:02 2007: 3214   BigDumbDinosaur

...unable to use our cell phones...

The silencing of cell phones would not necessarily be a bad thing...it would have squelched the bozo that was sitting behind my wife and me at the restaurant last night. We like peace and quiet when we dine out, and we don't appreciate listening to some monkey chattering into his phone at the top of his lungs about a lot of unimportant drivel.

Thu Nov 1 21:49:27 2007: 3217   drag

I was thinking about the public safety switchover. Imagine the conspiracy theories that can be built off that: at the flip of a switch "they" (you know, "them") can make us deaf and dumb, unable to use our cell phones, our computers.. ooohhh...

Certainly there are many countries that would be clamoring about that sort of feature.

Having the ability for the average person to take snapshots and videos while being instantly able to upload them has caused no end of headaches to certain types of governments.

Of course it doesn't take long for these types of places to learn how to turn off public infrastructure when they decide to do something to the public that other countries may find.. distastefull.

Whoever is able to standardize this and get it working effectively would stand to make a very large amount of money from all sorts of oppressive governments the world over. Thing of the billions of dollars to made in helping to opress China's citizenship alone!

Anyways.. it seems to me that this way of 'carving up the turkey' is quickly growing very outmoded. With modern software radios and digital packet transmissions it's now getting more and more possible to have a very 'ad-hoc' wireless spectrum. A single radio would be capable of several types of modes of operations and cover those over a very large spectrum and be able to adapt transparently and quickly to changing circumstances. Not only be able to communicate with towers, but with each other, and with satelite.

The internet itself is designed as a mesh network. The backbones we have are a design nessicity because the need to pay to have large wires span long distances. With a wireless mesh network it wouldn't be nessicary to have those backbones. In another 10 years or so I'd bet that reagional mesh networks and even international mesh newtorks should be attainable. The OLPC is proving that ad-hoc mesh networks are cheap and effective for campus/small town-sized areas.

That is then the cost of the internet is not going to be paid for by ISPs, but buy the individuals and businesses that buy computers and carry them around with them.

Then for highly reliable and highly secure networks then you always have the wired version for people that need those sort of services.

I think that's simply selling off control of this spectrum is probably very short sighted and is more then likely a huge waste of a valuable resource.


Printer Friendly Version

Have you tried Searching this site?

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more.

Contact us

Printer Friendly Version

C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. (Steve Taylor)

Linux posts

Troubleshooting posts

This post tagged:



Unix/Linux Consultants

Skills Tests

Unix/Linux Book Reviews

My Unix/Linux Troubleshooting Book

This site runs on Linode

SCO Unix Sales, Support, & Service

Phone:  707-SCO-UNIX (707-726-8649Toll Free: 833-SCO-UNIX (833-726-8649)